Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTELLECTUAL CO-OPERATION (LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMMITTEE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of inviting the League of Nations Committee of Intellectual Cooperation to hold one of its meetings in London in view of the fact that no such meeting has taken place in Great Britain before and that an Englishman has for several years been president of the organisation; and whether he will further consider the advisability of signing and ratifying the International Act recently agreed to at a Paris conference and of making a grant to the work of the committee in view of the fact that the United States of America, France, and 44 other nations are actively co-operating in this work?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend will consider the possibility of the suggestion made in the first part of the hon. Member's question. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom decided that for reasons of financial principle they could not adhere to the International Act on Intellectual Co-operation, but were fully prepared to maintain the contribution they make to intellectual co-operation through the League of Nations itself.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that this is a part of the work of the League of Nations in which the Government, could effectively co-operate, will the Government seriously consider doing what is suggested in the first part of the question?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I said that we would give that careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Prime Minister whether the French and Dutch Governments have been consulted or approached about the admission of Jewish refugees into their Guianas?

Mr. Butler: The director of the Inter-Governmental Committee has consulted the French and Netherlands representatives on the committee on the possibility of settlement in French and Dutch Guiana. I understand that a Jewish organisation in the Netherlands, with the approval of that Government, is shortly sending to Surinam a commission of experts to study the possibilities of settlement in Dutch Guiana.

Wing-Commander James: Has any approach been made to the French Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I think it has.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will there be an opportunity, when the Vote is taken to-morrow, for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information?

Mr. Butler: I am always ready to give information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the official statement made by the Foreign Office on 26th September last, that Great Britain would stand by France and Russia in the event of German aggression against Czecho-Slovakia, it remains the policy of the British Government to resist aggression jointly with these two countries; and what steps have been taken since September to promote the necessary contacts?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The statement, the terms of which were not exactly as the hon. Member describes, was directed to a particular contingency which happily did not occur.

Mr. Mander: Has there been any change since then in the willingness of the British Government to co-operate with the Russian Government against aggression?

Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Member will see that a general question of policy cannot be adequately dealt with in a supplementary answer.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, before his conversations do take place, he will seek- definite proof from the Soviet Government that Soviet revolutionary aggression has definitely ceased against the British Empire?

Captain McEwen: Is it not the fact that Russia is apt to be more dangerous as a friend than an enemy?

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nowadays we want all the friends we can get?

Mr. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend inquire from the hon. Member of which countries the hon. Member would like Russia to violate the neutrality in order to come to the help of Czecho-Slovakia?

10. Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Czech Government have been told they must hand over to the German interests 70 per cent. of the shares of the Wilko-witz Ironworks, near Teschen; that share majorities are also demanded in the Skoda Works, the Brno Works, where the Bren machine-guns are made, and the Oerlikon Works, where anti-aircraft guns are produced; and what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to this interference in the internal affairs of Czecho-Slovakia, which is contrary to the Munich Agreement?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The last part does not, therefore, arise.

Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that these figures have appeared in a paper which supports the Government and has a very large circulation, and that there is every reason to believe that these facts are correct? Will he inquire, so as to be able to give me the information: and will he make it quite clear that the Government do not countenance any interference with the internal, political and economic affairs of Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Butler: I have no reason to believe that the information contained in the question of the hon. Gentleman is correct,

but if he has any detailed information to give me I will certainly consider it carefully.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that we were getting armour-plate from Czecho-Slovakia before Germany entered that country, and that we are not getting, it now, and cannot get it?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (MILITARY INFORMATION).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether during the recent exchange of military information between this country and Italy, His Majesty's Government received definite assurances with regard to the aerodromes established on the Mediterranean coast?

Mr. Butler: In accordance with the provisions of Annex 2 to the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 16th April, 1938, certain military information was exchanged with the Italian Government on 10th January of this year. There was no question of exchanging any general assurances, for which the Agreement makes no provision.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Under-Secretary answer that part of the question dealing with aerodromes established on the Mediterranean coast?

Mr. Butler: I think I have answered it by saying that there were no general assurances of this kind. It was simply an agreement to exchange military information.

Mr. Davidson: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to keep secret the result of these military conversations?

Mr. Butler: They must not be regarded as secret military conversations. They are exchanges of information which are, by their very nature, confidential.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN EAST AFRICA (TROOPS).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister the number of Italian troops at present concentrated in Italian East Africa, including Italian Somaliland and Eritrea, and the extent by which such numbers have been increased since November, 1938?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government understand that the official establishment


of troops in Italian East Africa amounts to 69,654. Actual numbers stationed there naturally vary from time to time, and there would seem to have been some increase in the past few months.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the proximity of British possessions to Italian East Africa, do His Majesty's Government propose to ask the Italian Government the reason for these increases?

Mr. Butler: I would say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member, we are always in touch with the Italian Government on any matters of importance.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since this information means that the clause of the Anglo-Italian Agreement which dealt with the withdrawal of troops from Libya has, in fact, been wiped out, are we to understand that the rest of the Treaty has also been wiped out with regard to the withdrawal of troops?

Mr. Butler: This question deals with Eritrea and Somaliland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now any statement to make on the negotiations at present being carried on with General Franco as to a possible armistice in Spain and on the matter of de facto and de jure recognition of the Spanish insurgent authorities?

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have formulated any list of conditions to be accepted by General Franco as a preliminary to official recognition?

Sir J. Simon: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Members for Lambeth, North (Mr. G. Strauss), Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 15th February.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that General Franco regards any discussion of negotiations as impertinent on the part of the French and British Governments?

Mr. Davidson: May I ask whether, with regard to these conversations, the question of compensation to British shipowners, and to the dependants of British sailors,

who have been killed, has been raised? May I have an answer on this very important question?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the reply to which I have referred him, he will see that no further statement can be made at the moment.

Sir H. Croft: Does not recognition, in fact, depend upon established facts and not upon a set of circumstances; and is it not the case that the Government have no power to formulate conditions concerning a war which they have not yet. recognised?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AERODROME CONSTRUCTION, CARLTON MINIOTT.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of men employed in connection with the construction of the aerodrome at Carlton Miniott, Thirsk; how many of these are Irishmen; and how many have been recruited from the local Employment Exchange?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I understand that 260 men are at present employed, most of whom were engaged locally, including 44 through the local Employment Exchange. I am informed that of the total number employed 40 are Irish.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great disappointment in that district that these Irishmen are being preferred to local unemployed, of whom there are 250?

Sir K. Wood: Government contractors are required to notify the appropriate Employment Exchanges as and when any additional labour is required to carry out a contract. They are requested to inform the Employment Exchanges without delay of any vacancies that are filled. As far as the other matter is concerned, there are no powers, as my hon. Friend knows, to restrict the entry of British subjects into the United Kingdom.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not now time for the Government to seek powers to insist upon contractors employing local unemployed labour?

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to secure that, when this work is ending, the Englishmen will be-kept on longer than the Irishmen?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

Mr. Logan: In view of the announcement with regard to Irishmen coming in, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the British Army also requires Irishmen?

Mr. Crossley: Will my right hon. Friend consider making representations to the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what firm has obtained the contract for the construction of the aerodrome at Carlton Miniott, Thirsk; and where the firm has its head offices?

Sir K. Wood: The contract for the construction of the Royal Air Force Station at Carlton Miniott has been placed after competitive tendering with Messrs. Stewart and Partners, Baker Street, London.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air particulars of the number of officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force who have been attached to the Straits Settlements Volunteer Air Force for the purpose of training volunteers of that Air Force; and the present establishment of such Force?

Sir K. Wood: The arrangements in regard to the Straits Settlements Volunteer Air Force provide for the attachment thereto of an establishment of two officers and 38 airmen of the Royal Air Force. The establishment for the Straits Settlements Volunteer Air Force personnel is 20 officers and 113 airmen.

Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the increase in this Force satisfactory?

Sir K. Wood: I have no reason to doubt that.

FLYING CLUBS (INDIAN MEMBERS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Indian subjects are being made the victims of a colour bar at a number of flying clubs in this country; and whether he will take steps to see that no discrimination shall be made at any of these clubs on colour grounds against persons otherwise entitled to use them?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The question of membership of flying clubs is a matter for the clubs themselves, but I understand that a number of flying clubs in this country have Indian members.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister use his influence to get these flying clubs to put an end to this discrimination and allow pilots coming from India to become members?

Captain Balfour: The arrangement between the Ministry and these clubs is governed by an agreement which does not expire until March, 1942, and in that agreement there is no discrimination against Indians, but they must conform to the same conditions as other members. They must be British subjects and normally resident in this country. It may be that some Indians have been refused admission to the clubs probably because they do not conform to the condition of being normally resident in this country.

Mr. T. Williams: In view of the fact that the Government subsidise these private flying clubs, will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman use his influence, if he finds that discrimination is taking place, to persuade them to stop it?

Captain Balfour: If any hon. Member has any particular case in mind and brings it to my notice, I will take it up.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether it is true that non-combatants are allowed to join the Moscow flying club?

Mr. Benn: In view of the great interest taken in this matter, cannot the Undersecretary take a rather wider view and make it understood that we do not wish Indians to be excluded on the ground that they are Indians?

Captain Balfour: I have already said that if hon. Members have any particular cases in mind I will look into them. The right hon. Gentleman has put a question which is entirely different from that on the Order Paper. If he will put it down I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD VEHICLES (ILLUMINATED ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to


prohibit the use of neon or other illuminated advertisements on the back and sides of all road vehicles?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am not aware of any evidence which would justify action of the kind that the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not plain that if vans travelling along the streets are illuminated with neon signs they constitute a danger? Some of these vans exist. I have seen them myself. Will not the right hon. Gentleman take some action to prevent this in the future?

Mr. Burgin: I will certainly consider any information the hon. Member gives me, but in my answer I have said that I have no evidence which would justify my taking action.

Mr. Strauss: As there have been no accidents because the number of the vehicles is small, will not the right hon. Gentleman take action before the accidents occur?

Mr. Burgin: Nothing is clear without evidence. If the hon. Member will give me evidence I will look into it.

RAILWAYS (ROAD COMPETITION).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered complaints regarding what are described as obsolete Statutes, the provisions of which are seriously affecting the economic life of the railways in their competition with various forms of road transport; and whether he can now say what action the Government propose to take to unify the organisation of the road and rail transport services?

Mr. Burgin: Until I have received and considered the report of the Transport Advisory Council upon the reference now before them, I would prefer not to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Kennedy: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the report?

Mr. Burgin: I hope it will not be delayed. The matter is, obviously, one of great public interest, and I wish to deal with it.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Transport whether he recognises that a large proportion of road accidents occur as the result of drivers of motor-vehicles

drinking intoxicating liquor, though they are not so affected as to be described as under the influence of drink; whether he will arrange to have the number of such cases shown in accident returns; and whether he proposes to take steps to ensure that persons partaking of alcoholic drinks shall not drive a motor-vehicle within a certain stipulated time thereafter?

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the chairmen of the licensing justices at York, Leicester, and elsewhere made public comment at the annual licensing sessions last week on the large number of persons proceeded against during the year for being under the influence of drink while driving a motor-car; and whether he will seek to secure some improvement in the method of collecting statistics of road accidents so as to show the number of cases in which, on the admission of the persons involved, or in the opinion of the police, alcoholic beverages had been consumed by the driver shortly before the accident?

Mr. Burgin: I am not inclined to believe that a large proportion of road accidents can be attributed to drink. The extent to which the consumption of alcoholic liquor by drivers of motor vehicles may have been the contributory cause of accidents is, I am afraid, not susceptible of demonstration by statistics, nor do I think that trustworthy information on the point would be obtainable in the manner suggested. In the special investigation made in 1936–37 it was found that out of nearly 200,000 accidents 1,307 were attributable to drink or drugs as a primary cause, and in 567 cases the driver was the person affected. As at present advised I am not prepared to introduce legislation under which it would be an offence to drive a motor vehicle within a specified period after the consumption of intoxicating liquor.

Mr. Mathers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather transgressing the point he made on a previous question—that it required evidence? Is he not now expressing an opinion without adequate evidence? Is not the real snag in many of these cases that in order to bring home an offence to motor drivers who are under the influence of drink, they are charged with the minor offence of careless driving.


because there is a fear in the minds of those who bring the charge that a conviction for the major offence would not be secured before a jury?

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the evidence given before the committee which was set up by the late Minister of Transport, and also the recommendations of the medical committee which looked into this question and said that something should be done? Will he also bear in mind that 31,000 children under 15 years of age are injured on the roads every years?

Mr. T. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the evidence submitted by the Scottish Sheriffs during the last two years as to the great preponderance of serious accidents caused by drunken drivers?

Mr. Burgin: I hope the House will not think from anything I have said that I desire in any way to condone the offence of driving under the influence of drink. I wish it to be as seriously punished as possible. But what I am endeavouring to deal with is a much wider problem, whether there is a large and growing proportion of accidents due to drink. The evidence does not support that statement. I will willingly examine information and statistics from any quarter because it is a real problem, and if we can solve it, so much the better.

Mr. C. Wood: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of having one fixed penalty for all cases of this kind?

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the large number of accidents which have taken place recently at the junction of Kingsland Road, Harman Street, and Pearson Street, Shoreditch; and whether he will take steps, in conjunction with the local authority, to have traffic lights set up at this point at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the accidents which have occurred at this junction recently, and am giving consideration to the local authority's suggestion that traffic lights should be installed.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to reach a decision fairly promptly?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The renewal application reached me on the 18th of this month.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Transport the number of road accidents in the city and county of Lincoln, respectively, both fatal and non-fatal, for the year 1938?

Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of road accidents involving personal injury in the city and county of Lincoln respectively during the year, 1938, were:

Police District.
Fatal Accidents.
Non-fatal Accidents.


City of Lincoln
—
261


County of Lincoln
86
1,703


Boston
1
41


Grantham
4
74


Grimsby
1
319

Mr. Muff (for Mr. Poole): asked the Minister of Transport how many fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively, have occurred on the Kingstanding Road during the year ended 31st December, 1938; what is preventing the completion of the dual carriageway on this road; and will he take steps to get the Birmingham City Council to proceed with this work during the present year?

Mr. Burgin: During the year ending 31st December, 1938, the total number of accidents of all kinds on this road was 94. One person was killed. I understand that the Birmingham Corporation do not consider that the present traffic on this road is sufficient to warrant the large expenditure which would be involved in the construction of a second carriageway throughout its length, but consider that priority should be given to other more urgent improvement schemes in the city.

INLAND WATERWAYS.

30. Mr. Alan Herbert: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now say how many miles of inland waterways, including canals, navigations, and open rivers, are navigable by loaded commercial craft?

Mr. Burgin: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the figure for which he asks is not readily available. I do not


think that the value of the information would be commensurate with the work involved in obtaining it.

Mr. Herbert: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, I beg to give notice that if I can I shall raise this subject in the Debate on unemployment to-day.

PORTS (CONTROL).

33. Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many small and large ports are controlled entirely by railway interests to the exclusion of coastal trade, road transport, and urgent local trade interests; and what steps he is taking to lead to a fair adjustment in the general national interests?

Mr. Burgin: I am not quite sure that I appreciate the point raised in my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but if he will furnish me with particulars I will make inquiries.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right, hon. Gentleman aware that on the East coast and on the South coast there are a number of ports which are derelict in consequence of railway companies having bought up a number of interests?

ROAD SIGNS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to further assist motorists and, at the same time preserve, in part, the amenities of all main roads by the abolition of the figures denoting the 30 mile per hour limit, he will cause a red, or red and white line, instead of an all white line, to be painted along the centre of the road in all built-up areas?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. In my view the present method of indicating the existence of the 30 mile per hour speed limit, which was settled after consultation with representatives of road users, is to be preferred to the use of a coloured line on the carriageway, which might easily be obscured and would not be readily visible at night.

Mr. Liddall: Is not a white line just as easily, if not more easily, obscured in certain circumstances, such as in a snow storm, and does not the Minister agree that the suggestion in the question is the best suggestion he has had put before him?

DOGS (PASSENGER TRAINS).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a regulation, recently issued by the London and North Eastern Railway Company, that passengers, notwithstanding that they are in possession of a recognised ticket for the transport of dogs, are not allowed to travel their animals by certain passenger trains, even in the guard's van; and whether he will inquire whether it is the intention of any other railway companies to introduce similar regulations?

Mr. Burgin: Although I have no jurisdiction in this matter I have communicated with the railway companies and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the first time for nearly 100 years that such a ban has been introduced on the railways?

Mr. Burgin: Not from personal knowledge, at any rate.

PARKING PLACES, LONDON.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory time conditions applying to public parking places in London, whereby persons unaware of the regulations and leaving their motor cars for more than two hours are liable to be proceeded against; whether he will cause instructions to be given that parking attendants shall give notice of the time limit to motor car drivers leaving their motor cars; and whether, in view of the shortage of garage accommodation, and the average length of time of theatrical and other entertainments, he will consider extending the period to three hours?

Mr. Burgin: The maximum period during which vehicles may be left upon an authorised parking place in London is laid down in the appropriate Regulations and is also indicated clearly on notices at the parking places. The attendants at parking places are instructed to hand a card setting out the conditions governing the use of the parking place to the driver if possible or, if not, to leave it on the car. I am not prepared to extend the maximum period.

Mr. Liddall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he is averse to extending the period?

Mr. Burgin: Because I think it is unreasonable to provide space in the centre of the Metropolitan area for people to leave their cars.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (PULLMAN CARS).

Mr. Muff (for Mr. Poole): asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the rolling stock on a number of the London and North Eastern Railway Company's main line expresses to and from the North is Pullman stock, for seats in which the public is called upon to pay heavy seat charges, and that much of this stock is 11 years old; and whether, in view of the fact that other main line companies provide up to date stock for which no supplementary charge is made, he will make suitable representations to the London and North Eastern Railway Company for the removal of this charge?

Mr. Burgin: The company inform me that on their main line express services to and from the North there are only three trains in each direction (two on weekdays and one on Sundays) composed exclusively of Pullman stock. These trains are additional to trains made up of the company's standard stock, of which there are alternative services. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a supplementary charge is made for the use of Pullman cars on other lines also, to cover the cost of this special service. I can see no justification for asking for the discontinuance of these charges.

DUAL CARRIAGEWAY, WALSALL ROAD.

Mr. Muff (for Mr. Poole): asked the Minister of Transport whether in conjunction with the city of Birmingham and the Staffordshire County Council, he will take steps to secure the completion of the dual carriageway on the Walsall Road, in view of the fact that the Walsall Borough Council have performed this work up to their boundary?

Mr. Burgin: The Staffordshire County Council have agreed as my agents to improve the trunk road between the Birmingham city boundary and the Walsall county borough boundary, by the construction of a second carriageway, and the necessary land is being acquired. Negotiations are proceeding with the Birmingham City Council for the improvement, on similar lines, of the road within that city.

FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL.

Mr. Kennedy (for Mr. Westwood): asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to encourage goods transport by canal, with special reference to the Forth and Clyde Canal, and to avoid its complete destruction by the railway companies?

Mr. Burgin: The Forth and Clyde Canal is the property of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I am informed by the company that the condition of this canal is satisfactory throughout its entire length. My power to revise the authorised tolls on this canal is exercisable only upon application. A formal application concerning the tolls on petrol barges between Grange-mouth and Glasgow on the Forth and Clyde Canal is now sub judice.

Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister say whether the transport of goods on this canal has increased or decreased during the past two years?

Mr. Burgin: I could not without notice. I have not the figures before me, but I shall be happy to obtain the information if the hon. Member desires it.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Transport what is the position with regard to the postponed legislation for amalgamation of electrical undertakings; and in what respects the policy outlined in the Departmental Paper of 1937 has been modified?

Mr. Burgin: I cannot add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th November last. In these circumstances, it would be premature for me to attempt to summarise the result of discussions on the Departmental Paper referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ACCIDENT, CHATHAM DOCKYARD.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at Chatham Dockyard on Thursday last, when a mart was killed; and whether he can say what was the cause of the accident?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): I regret to inform the hon. Member that a labourer was killed in Chatham Dockyard on Wednesday last, as the result of his being crushed between a travelling crane and a stanchion during his employment in a machine shop.

Mr. Thorne: Will the relatives be compensated under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir; certainly. We have sent our sympathy to the relatives, and they will also get compensation under the scheme.

OLDER CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS (RE-ARMING).

Mr. Day (for Mr. David Adams): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress is being made with the re-arming of older cruisers and destroyers for convoy purposes; how many ships of this type are scheduled for conversion; and whether the delivery of equipment for such vessels is up to schedule?

Colonel Llewellin: The programme for re-arming older cruisers and destroyers is proceeding satisfactorily. The necessary equipment for such conversion is being delivered according to plan. We hope in due course to convert the majority of these vessels.

Mr. Day: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is meant by "in due course "?

Colonel Llewellin: The work is proceeding as quickly as possible, and we have several vessels in hand at the moment.

Mr. Kirkwood: May we be informed whether it is the policy of the Government not to scrap anything connected with the Navy, but to lay-up instead? Is it a policy of "lay-up and build," instead of "scrap and build"?

Colonel Llewellin: That, of course, is a much wider question.

CANDIDATES.

Mr. T. Smith (for Mr. Paling): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men have made application to join the Navy in the last 12 months for which figures are available; how many were accepted, and how many rejected on medical grounds?

Colonel Llewellin: The number of candidates who applied to enter the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, during the year ended 31st December, 1938, is 65,240. Of these, 15,428 were accepted for entry and 25,794 were rejected on medical grounds. A further 1,162 candidates were entered during this period mainly as a result of competitive examination, but figures are not available as to the number who applied to compete at these examinations.

Mr. Smith: Has any inquiry been made as to why such a large number of young men should be rejected on medical grounds?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, I can give some approximate figures to the House. Some 45 per cent. of the rejections were on grounds of eyesight, including colour blindness, 15 per cent. were on account of teeth, and 7½ per cent. for ear trouble.

Mr. Logan: May I take it that none have been refused on account of Irish nationality?

Colonel Llewellin: None, Sir. We get some very good recruits for the Royal Navy both from North and South Ireland.

Mr. Thorne: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer that question of eyesight to the Minister of Education?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.

SHIPPING AND FISHERIES (MINISTRY).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the shipping and fishing industries to the national safety and prosperity, and the steady growth of agriculture as a vital national industry, he will consider the separation of shipping from the Board of Trade and Fisheries from the Ministry of Agriculture, and establish at an early date a Ministry of Shipping and Fisheries?

Sir J. Simon: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, there are many considerations involved in this suggestion besides those referred to in the question, and as at present advised the Prime Minister does not think that the establishment of the proposed new Ministry would be desirable.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister


the fact that when the Ministry of Agriculture was created, agriculture was in very low water, and that at the present time fishing and shipping are in very much the same condition?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread demand from fishing and shipping circles for a separate Ministry?

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to consult the late Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he did not find it was too much to attend to both agriculture and fisheries?

Sir J. Simon: The suggestion in the question is for the creation of a Ministry of Shipping, and for taking away shipping from the Board of Trade. That raises a very important question, in view of the fact that shipping is very closely connected with trade questions and agreements. All I am answering is that there are many considerations involved; but I will certainly report to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

TERRORISTS (ARMS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he now has information as to the country of origin of the arms taken from Arab terrorist gangs in Palestine?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Yes, Sir. An analysis made by the Palestine Government of arms seized by troops and police between July and November of last year has shown that they came almost wholly from stocks which had remained in the Middle East since the Great War.

Mr. Mander: Has not information been brought to the attention of the Government showing that some of the arms that have been brought in to the terrorist gangs have come definitely from Germany?

Mr. MacDonald: That is the case in a very few instances.

JEWISH REFUGEES.

60. Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to

the admission of 10,000 German-Jewish refugee children to Palestine, and old persons, relatives to Jews now in that country; and whether the matter has formed the subject of any conversations at the Palestine Conference?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statements that I have already made on this subject.

Mr. Mander: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he would take the opportunity of the conference to hold conversations on the subject?

Mr. MacDonald: The conference has not yet finished.

Mr. Mander: In view of the strong humanitarian claims for the admission of these children, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to make an appeal on humanitarian grounds to the persons now assembled in London?

Mr. Crossley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the introduction of 292,000 Jews is a pretty fair contribution on humanitarian grounds made by Palestine?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Has the possibility of admitting these 10,000 children to Palestine been raised with the delegates to the conference?

Mr. MacDonald: The question of immigration has been considered, and in connection with the refugee problem. Beyond this, I cannot make any statement at the present time.

Sir A. Sinclair: Has the scheme for 10,000 children been considered?

Mr. T. Williams: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would raise the question of the 10,000 children, as distinct from the general immigration question, has the question of the 10,000 children been raised, apart from the general question?

Mr. MacDonald: I promised to keep the matter in mind. So far we have not got down to particulars of this nature. We have only got as far as genera] discussions on immigration, with special reference to the refugee problem.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the specific


question of these 10,000 children has been mentioned to any of the delegates in London, or whether it will be?

Mr. MacDonald: I have just answered that question. We have not got down to particular details yet.

PUBLIC HEALTH.

Dr. Summerskill (for Lieut.-Commander Fletcher): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take on the report of the Department of Health for Palestine, which shows that the medical inspection of Government schools is inadequate, and that the scheme for hospital and sanatorium and out-patients, tuberculosis, clinics has been postponed?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The matters to which the hon. Member refers are, no doubt, being taken into consideration by the Palestine Government in connection with the draft Estimates for 1939–40. I would point out, however, that the provision of new, or the expansion of existing, services has necessarily had to be deferred owing to the serious effect of the prolonged disturbances on the financial position of the Government.

TEXTILE EXPORTS.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider improving the total exports of textile goods by suitably proportioning the particular quota provided by the various Colonies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The object of the quota system was to limit the expansion of imports from certain low-cost producers of textiles into certain colonial dependencies. That object has been largely achieved, but the whole position is still being kept under observation.

EAST AFRICA (LEPERS).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any estimate of the number of lepers in Uganda and in Tanganyika; and what steps are being taken for the treatment and cure of leprosy in these Colonies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The number of inmates in the five leper settlements in Uganda is approximately 1,600. In addition, 391 lepers were treated at Govern-

ment hospitals during 1937. In Tanganyika there are 31 leper settlements with a total of about 3,400 inmates. The medical secretary of the British Empire Leprosy Relief Association visited certain of the East African Dependencies, including Uganda and Tanganyika last year to study this problem. His reports are now being considered by the Governments concerned. I am glad to add that during recent years there have been notable improvements in housing and public health which should in time lessen the incidence of leprosy.

Mr. McEntee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report to which he referred, which is now being considered by the Governments of Uganda and Tanganyika, will be available to hon. Members?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that.

ST. HELENA.

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any further statement regarding measures to improve conditions in St. Helena?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I have arranged for Sir Frank Stockdale, my Agricultural Adviser, and Mr. J. B. Side-botham, a member of the administrative staff of the Colonial Office, to proceed to the Colony shortly to confer with the Governor on further measures for improving conditions in the island.

JAMAICA (LABOUR DISPUTE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement in connection with the recent serious labour troubles in Jamaica?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement respecting the strike now taking place in Jamaica, the nature of the grievances and demands of the strikers; and what action is being taken to remove those grievances?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to the position in Jamaica?

Mr. M. MacDonald: On 15th February the Governor of Jamaica reported that Mr. Bustamante, the labour leader, had issued without warning on the previous day island-wide orders for a general strike. The immediate cause appears to have been a dispute between members of his union and those of a rival union in Montego Bay. Mr. Bustamante requested the United Fruit Company to dismiss certain employés, and on their refusal to do so he took this further action. As a result, the wharves at Kingston were temporarily paralysed and labour on many estates obeyed the call. The Governor did not anticipate disorder but, as a precautionary measure and to reassure willing workers, considered it desirable to declare a state of emergency and to call up the local forces and special constables. In a later message the Governor stated that as a result of the action taken, which was fully supported by the Elected Members of the Legislative Council, the island was quiet and no disorders had occurred. While the strike was maintained in places, it was generally losing ground and public opinion was against it. In a telegram dated 20th February the Governor has informed me that the strike notices have been unconditionally withdrawn and that in consequence the emergency regulations ceased to operate as from midnight on the 20th.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say whether the quarrel between two rival unions was on account of a line of demarcation in regard to labour?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not certain what was the exact cause of the quarrel. I understand it was about the employment of a member of one union when the other union thought that one of their members ought to have been employed.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Minister agree that it would be impossible for these disturbances to arise unless the working conditions in Jamaica were thoroughly unsatisfactory?

Mr. MacDonald: There have been recent improvements in the working conditions and this dispute was not on account of working conditions.

Sir Cooper Rawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Moyne Commission is likely to issue a report?

Mr. MacDonald: I am afraid I cannot. They are still examining the problem in Trinidad.

NYASALAND (NATIVE LABOUR, RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the date and particulars of the last report received from the Governor of Nyasaland on the recruitment of native labour for mines in Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The last published document on the subject is Mr. Abraham's report published for the Nyasaland Government in 1937. My subsequent information consists of a series of despatches and other unpublished papers dealing in detail with the various aspects of the subject. These reports cover many subjects, but on the whole they show a steady improvement in the state of affairs. For example, the mortality rate from all causes amongst Nyasaland labourers on the Rand has fallen in the last two years from approximately 24 to 12 per thousand.

Mr. Day: Have any exclusive rights been given to any private company to recruit these natives?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not think so.

TRINIDAD (PETITION).

Mr. James Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a petition from Mr. J. D. Butler, of Trinidad, respecting his allegations of unjustifiable degradation, and as this appears to infringe the existing education regulations and considerable public disquiet has been expressed concerning the case, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and whether he will take steps to protect teachers against arbitrary action taken by Sebval management boards?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have received the petition in question, but have not yet had an opportunity of considering it.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that adequate attention is given to this petition?

Mr. MacDonald: The petition has only just come in, and it may take a little time to give it the adequate consideration for which the hon. Member asks. Perhaps he will get in touch with me later, and I may be able to let him know when there will be a suitable opportunity for putting down another question.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Turton: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the removal of the railings round those London parks in which trenches have been constructed so as to allow easy access to the trenches on the occasion of an air raid in time of war?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a question that will have to be considered so that action can, if necessary, be taken in the event of a state of emergency arising.

Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that in existing circumstances if an air-raid warning occurred after the park closing time, there would be great congestion and delay?

Sir P. Sassoon: I am looking into it.

Captain McEwen: Is it not a fact that in the event of an air raid one would be just as safe lying on one's face on the road outside the railings, as one would be inside?

Mr. Selley (for Mr. Doland): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state, in the event of an emergency, and to avoid panic and congestion on the roads, what organisation will be set up to cover those persons who have their own transport, and are entitled to leave vulnerable areas for safer places in the country and have made arrangements for billeting; and when will he issue these instructions?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Lloyd): Attention has been given by the police to the question of special arrangements for facilitating the flow of traffic by road from vulnerable areas; but the matter, which depends for its treatment primarily upon local circumstances, is not one on which it is proposed to issue any public announcement at the present juncture.

HOSPITALS (FOREIGN NURSES).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary how many applications he has had from local authorities or private hospitals to grant permits to foreign nurses to work in hospitals in Great Britain; how many permits have been granted during the past year; and how many are awaiting decision?

Mr. G. Lloyd: The Ministry of Labour issued 224 permits during 1938 to hospitals to employ foreign nurses, and in addition made 98 favourable recommendations to the Home Office in respect of persons already in the United Kingdom who wished to enter hospital posts. In 89 cases the Ministry of Labour was unable either to issue a permit or to make a favourable recommendation to the Home Office. Fifty cases are outstanding. In addition to the cases dealt with under the normal procedure, arrangements were made in October with the Nursing Sub-Committee of the Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees to allow German women to undertake work as nurses in hospitals in this country, and visas were authorised in 63 cases up to the end of 1938.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (COTTON OPERATIVES).

Sir John Haslam: asked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce a Measure granting compensation to those persons proved to be suffering from diseases caused by excessive dust in cotton mills, particularly card-room workers?

Mr. G. Lloyd: The Report of the Departmental Committee on this subject has only just been published, and I would ask my hon. Friend to allow me to defer making a statement until those concerned have been given time to consider it.

Sir J. Haslam: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have been agitating for this for three years; that these people are suffering untold agony and that the matter is very urgent indeed?

Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to deal with this matter by extending the schedule of industrial diseases rather than by legislation?

Mr. G. Lloyd: I could not say that, but there is an actual scheme in the report.

CAPITAL SHIPS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN POWERS).

Mr. Muff (for Mr. Edwards): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many capital ships were built by the various naval Powers between 1918 and 1935; and what is the present definition of a capital ship?

Colonel Llewellin: Between 1918 and 1935 Great Britain completed three capital ships, the United States seven, Germany two, and Japan three. No other naval Power built capital ships during these years. For the present definition of a capital ship, as embodied in Article 1 of the London Naval Treaty of 1936, I would refer the hon. Member to page 2 of the current copy of "Fleets."

ARMAMENT WORK, DURHAM.

Mr. Sexton (for Mr. W. Joseph Stewart): asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the amount of Government work in connection with rearmament, and the value of such work that has been placed with firms in the administrative county of Durham, and the county boroughs of South Shields and Sunderland, during the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, respectively?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): In answer to the first part of the question, I am obtaining the figures, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate them in the Official Report in the course of the next few days. With regard to the second part of the question, I regret that it is not possible, without an undue amount of labour, to ascertain the value of orders placed under the rearmament scheme in any county or any Special Area. To obtain the information asked for by the hon. Member would require an amount of work which I would not willingly impose on the Service Departments under existing conditions of pressure. It would, moreover, not be possible to collect information about these particular areas and to refuse to collect it about other places. The resultant work would be overwhelming.

Sir J. Haslam: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the first call upon his services is not in connection with the Duchy about which he gets his title and sits on that bench, and whether he will bear Lancashire in mind?

Mr. Muff: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has most of his work provided for him from our county of Yorkshire?

NEW TRAINING CENTRE, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to open the new preparatory training centre in Liverpool?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): My right hon. Friend hopes that training will begin at the Liverpool centre about the middle of March.

SOCIAL INSURANCE SERVICES.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to move,
That, in view of the growing importance of the social insurance services to the well-being of the nation, this House is of opinion that some co-ordination is necessary in order to remove anomalies and prevent overlapping, that the services should be extended to provide a greater measure of security in times of sickness, unemployment, widowhood, and old age, and that, accordingly, an inquiry as to how these purposes are to be achieved should be instituted without delay.
The Motion deals with a very important question, in which considerable interest is taken, particularly among the working classes of this country. The social services cover a very wide field, much too wide for me to deal with in the course of this short Debate. I propose to confine myself to what are called the social insurance services, and that subject alone is sufficient, although I may have to refer to what are called the assistance services as well. It is fitting that this Debate should take place to-day after the Debate of yesterday, for the two questions which are causing much concern to the people of this country, and indeed to the people of the world, are, first, the question of security against war and, second, and quite as important, security against poverty.
For two days this week the House has been engaged in discussing the huge expenditure to be incurred in providing some security against a potential external enemy. This Motion will take the time of the House for just half a Parliamentary day to consider the question of dealing with an enemy which we know exists in our own country and from which millions of the best of our people suffer. The Government may claim that the nation is forced, through circumstances over which it has no control, to carry out the heavy expenditure upon armaments, but for the suffering of the people from poverty the Government must take full responsibility. Who will deny that in this, our own, country economic insecurity is a nightmare to the great mass of the people, not only to the working classes, but to the middle classes, and indeed, to some of the wealthy classes, too? There is this great fear of the scourge of poverty, from which so many of the men, women, and children of this country suffer, poverty which humiliates,

which destroys the moral of the best of our folk, which makes the function of motherhood a tragedy, which robs the child of its rightful place in life, and which drives to despair the widow and the aged. We claim that the Government have the power, if they only had the will, to do the right thing by these people.
It can be claimed that five causes of insecurity come under these social insurance services. First, there is the question of sickness, which brings temporary or prolonged incapacity for work. Then comes unemployment, which may continue for a week or for years. Then there is industrial accident, that sudden misfortune, which may mean days or months of disablement, which may cripple for life or indeed destroy life. Next, there is widowhood. The mother, after the loss of the breadwinner, not only has the responsibility of rearing the children who are left but also of finding much of the income to maintain them. Then there is the question of old age. These old industrial workers are many of them thrown upon the scrapheap after a lifetime of toil, and somehow there is little realisation that the need to be fed, housed, clothed persists to the end of life, but that earning-power, without specific disease, usually stops at a certain age, and if a person lives beyond that age, then, in accordance with our social insurance services, he or she is expected to live on a very inadequate income.
In all five ways the income of the family from earnings may be suspended permanently or for a time. It is certain that a large proportion of the population will suffer during their lifetime from one or other of the causes referred to. These are not disorders of the individual; they are disorders of society. After the industrial revolution which turned creative inventions and mass production into great wealth the nation was blind to the squalor of its social consequences, for, apart from the Poor Law and a few friendly societies, little was done to deal with the sufferings of the people. It was towards the end of the last century that the nation began to realise that left alone it was beyond the means of the great majority of workers to make proper provision to meet their needs and that some collective bearing of risks was necessary to modem society.
Then came the first Workmen's Compensation Act, in 1897. That was a permissive Act, and it was followed by other Acts. Then came the first Old Age Pensions Act, in 1908. Little was done until 1910. Some progress was then made, and it is true to say that all parties have shared in bringing about that progress. We on this side of the House claim that the trade unions and the party to which I belong did much to create the social conscience which demanded from Governments those services which we now have.
It is interesting to note that in 1910, less than 30 years ago, all the provision made by the State and the municipalities to deal with the social ills to which I have referred, measured in money, was £7,500,000 for old age pensions and £16,000,000 for Poor Law relief. Since then we have had national health insurance, unemployment insurance, and so on, and it is interesting to compare the figures of the expenditure under the various heads in the latest available full year, 1936. In that year there was an expenditure under the various social insurance services, including public assistance relief, of £268,000,000–10 times that of 1910. This figure appears to be very large, but when we realise that it is less than 5 per cent. of the total income of the country, it will be seen that it is a small sum. When it is realised, also, that the beneficiaries under the various schemes represent 20 per cent. of the total population among which this 5 per cent. of the national income is divided, the sum appears very small indeed. It is as well that we should realise that this money does not all come from the State. I am inclined to think that the State gets out of it very lightly, for out of the £268,000,000 to which I have referred the direct State contribution is £136,000,000. The remainder is divided among contributions from the workpeople and employers. If we look at some of the services we see the substantial contribution which they make.
In unemployment insurance £42,700,000 is the contribution of the workpeople and employers, against the State contribution of £21,000,000. In national health insurance the contribution from the workpeople and employers is £35,000,000, and the State contribution £7,500,000. For contributory pensions the workpeople and employers contribute £30,000,000, and the State £15,000,000. The State makes

some contribution to public assistance relief, but it is very small. The bulk of the money comes from the ratepayers, and in the main the workpeople find the rates. The contributions from the State, therefore—and I want to emphasise this point—are such that it gets out of its obligations very lightly. It is an interesting point that, if we compare the national income to-day with that of 1910, the spending of this money has not made the nation poorer. The nation is much richer. I have read the Debates on the Old Age Pensions Act and the early National Health Insurance Act, and it is interesting to note the fright which was expressed by hon. Members who opposed these Measures as to the condition of the country and the possibility of the country being able to meet this expenditure. That is a lesson in finance and economy which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will take into consideration even at this time.
These services touch the lives of from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 people in a dozen or more different ways during their lifetime. Never before have the public services been so intimately and continuously bound up with the family life of the ordinary citizen. There are almost 10,000,000 beneficiaries, and one thing which the social insurance services has done is to establish State responsibility for many of our social ills. It has led to the foundation upon which the authors of the insurance scheme in the first instance intended that they should be built. No Government in a democratic system dare attempt to touch these services. As they stand they prevent a deal of want, unhappiness and humiliation, but it can never be claimed that they provide a sum of money on which life can be supported. The cash benefits paid were originally intended, not to cover even the minimum needs of the beneficiaries, but to be only a foundation upon which sufficient income to meet needs should be built. All these benefits are inadequate for the purposes for which they were intended, but, notwithstanding their inadequacy, it is interesting to compare service with service.
There are many anomalies. If 17s. per week with dependant's allowances is regarded as only sufficient to meet minimum needs for tiding over a period of unemployment, why should 15s., without dependant's allowances, be thought


proper to tide over the first six months of ill-health, when it is reduced to 7s. 6d.? No one on this side of the House claims that the unemployment insurance benefits are adequate, but there is a marked contrast between them and the other benefits. A married man in receipt of national health insurance benefit receives 15s. a week for the first six months and 7s. 6d. a week for long disablement, irrespective of whether he is married or what family is dependent upon him. Under unemployment insurance a man and his wife are entitled to 26s. a week statutory benefit, and if there are two children 6s. is added, making 32s., against 15s. a week for the first six months under national health insurance. Under workmen's compensation the average payment, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in a Debate a short time ago, works out at 24s. a week, which is 8s. a week less than a husband and wife with two children receive under unemployment insurance. Compare those payments with the sum on which the Government expect the old age pensioners to live, 10s. a week. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said a short time ago that it was never intended that old age pensioners should live upon this sum. What must they live upon? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has never faced up to that issue, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman who, I understand, is to reply to this Debate will face up to it.
Take the anomaly of the insured person when he comes to the age for his old age pension. A person must be an insured person to enable him to get the contributory pension at 65. He is insured under national health insurance. A month before he is 65, if he is in receipt of sickness benefit, he is entitled to 15s. a week. A week after he is 65 he suffers a reduction from 15s. to 10s. The anomaly is much more glaring in the case of unemployment benefit. A person aged 64 years and 11 months who is in receipt of unemployment benefit for himself and his wife is entitled to 26s. a week, statutory benefit. As soon as he attains the age of 65 his income is reduced from 26s. to 10s. a week, although he is still under an insurance scheme. If he is a married man both he and his wife will get pensions, if she is 65, but even if both get pensions, their income is at once

reduced from 26s. a week to £1. For some reason or other quite a number of men marry women much younger than themselves, and as the wife does not qualify for pension until she is 65 we find that there are nearly 300,000 women in this country whose husbands are old age pensioners but who themselves do not draw the pension because they are not yet 65.
Let me give the instance of a family of five adults. A son disabled in the War and in receipt of 100 per cent. disability pension gets £2 a week. Another son, disabled as a result of an accident in the course of his employment, will receive, on the basis of the average of workmen's compensation, 24s. a week. Another son, in receipt of statutory benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, gets 17s. a week. Another son, in receipt of benefit under national health insurance, gets 15s. a week during the first six months. The father, an old age pensioner, receives 10s. a week. Can the Government justify these variations in the income of members of a family such as this? I have simply used that case as an illustration, but it is quite possible that cases of that kind should arise.
Even among the national health insurance services themselves there are anomalies, for the reason that some approved societies are operating among people who do not follow arduous occupations, and therefore they can pay additional benefits, whereas other societies whose members are engaged in dangerous or arduous work have very little surplus and cannot pay any additional benefits at all. I think the case as regards anomalies under these schemes is being proved beyond question. Let me deal with overlapping in these services. Public assistance is still recognised as the last resort of those seeking assistance, and is a service which deals with a wide range of human needs. Notwithstanding the growth of the other services it remains one of the main public services, and is used in many cases to supplement the benefits received from those other services.
I do not know whether it was thought that public assistance would be abolished as a result of the operation of these other services, but the strange thing is that even with these other services in existence the expenditure upon public assistance has increased from £16,000,000 in 1910 to


£51,000,000 at the present time. I wonder what the expenditure on public assistance would be were it not for the existence of these other services? No estimate can be given of the amount of the supplementation, but there is the scandal of the old age pensions. In reply to a question, we have been informed that nearly 250,000 old age pensioners in this country need to have their old age pensions supplemented by public assistance. They are men and women who all their lives have fought against the possibility of having to resort to such assistance, but the force of circumstances in the last years of their lives has driven them to it. In my own county of Glamorgan public assistance costs the ratepayers £157,000 per annum —that is exclusive of old age pensioners and widows under 65—only to supplement the income of the old age pensioners. In Monmouthshire the proportion is similar to that in Glamorganshire. The same thing can be said with regard to workmen's compensation. Those figures are sufficient evidence in themselves of the inadequacy of the benefits supplied.
Then there is the overlapping which causes so much confusion among the insured workers. On matters connected with national health insurance a man must go to his approved society; for unemployment benefit he goes to the Employment Exchange; if he is applying to the Unemployment Assistance Board he goes to the area officer; an old age pensioner goes to the Ministry of Health and the Post Office; and in the case of workmen's compensation, the man goes to the employer's office. There are different rules and different people to deal with. An old age pensioner over 70 years of age applying for pension visits the Post Office and the investigation is carried out by an officer of the Customs and Excise. His application then goes before the local pensions committee, and he is paid at the Post Office. So one could go on. If an hon. Member is dealing with unemployment insurance he goes to the Ministry of Labour; if it is a question of public assistance or old age pensions, to the Ministry of Health; if it is workmen's compensation, to the Home Office. What the Home Office have to do with workmen's compensation is beyond me. If he wants to deal with industrial assurance he goes to the Board of Trade. If it is a question of war pensions, he goes to the Ministry of Pensions.
Is it not about time that we were thinking of bringing all these services under one Department? Why not a Minister of Social Services? We do not want to add to the Ministries which we already have. Take the case of the Minister of Pensions. He has so little to do that he is the messenger boy for a number of other Departments. In 1920 the expenditure of the Ministry of Pensions was over £100,000,000. To-day it is only one-third of that amount. I would give that Minister some useful work to do by placing him in charge, or placing someone, not necessarily the present Minister—not that there is very much against him—in charge as Minister of Social Services, for there is no clear view at the present time as to the purposes of these services, their improvement and extension, and the relation between one service and another. Then take the question of surpluses. In national health insurance there is a surplus of between £120,000,000 and £130,000,000. Under unemployment insurance there is a surplus of £40,000,000, after the £25,000,000 we took out last year to assist in repayment of a loan. Under co-ordination there would be an abolition of many of the anomalies and instead of a lowering to the lowest there would be an increase to the highest benefit paid.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I want to get the hon. Member's proposal clear in my mind. Is he proposing a Minister of Social Services to co-ordinate all existing social services?

Mr. Hall: Oh, yes. I should take out of the hands of the Minister of Labour and the Departments all the work which covers the present social insurance services. I think that each of the Ministers has as much as he can do without acting as administrator of the funds. I am making the proposal entirely off my own bat without consulting my colleagues; so I do not desire to associate them with it. If the test of these services is to be adequate maintenance for the recipients, then they leave much to be desired, for to-day, notwithstanding these services, the penalties for unemployment, sickness, old age pensions, accidents and widowhood, are terrible. In many of the homes of sufferers the economic status of the family is imperilled and in many cases the home is broken up and the family scattered. No


estimate can be given of the suffering incurred. Cries for sympathy have now become claims for justice and demands for right.
It is as well that we should remember who these people are: 2,220,000 of them are old age pensioners; 1,100,000 are widows and orphans; 1,250,000 come under the Unemployment Assistance Board; and then you have the sick and suffering through accident. Nearly 10,000,000 people in this country are suffering for the reasons I have endeavoured to give to the House. I do not think it is beyond the wisdom of the House to devise some means whereby plenty could be brought to those who want. So much could be done for so little. What the people of this country are paying now for insecurity is a terrible price. Under a system of co-ordination we could deal with the question of industrial assurance. I have just read a very excellent book written by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on the question of industrial assurance. I almost wish that I had tabled this Motion on the lines of the nationalisation of the industrial assurance companies, for then possibly the hon. Member would have seconded the Motion. If ever a ramp has been disclosed, it has been disclosed in the book of the hon. Member. He has pointed out the terrible cost to the working-class population of this country for a service which is intended only or mainly to provide a decent funeral. The insurance companies in this country are becoming the most powerful financial organisations in the country, almost entirely out of the pence of the poor people.
I do not intend to deal with the question of industrial assurance. It is a very interesting question and possibly it will be debated on another occasion. But let us compare the income obtained from the workers by the industrial assurance companies and what they get in return from the companies, with the income of the social insurance schemes of the State and what the workers get from them. The premiums paid into the industrial assurance companies for the last year for which we have figures were £66,000,000, and £32,000,000 of that found its way back in benefits to the people. All that many of them had was a decent funeral, and some of them did not get that be-

cause their policies had lapsed very shortly after they had started paying. The income of the State social insurance schemes amounted to £54,000,000. Out of that £54,000,000, together with the income from other sources, they received unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, national health insurance benefit, old age pension benefit—101 benefits compared with that which was provided by the industrial assurance companies.
There is a means whereby income can be diverted into a fund which would bring great benefits to the working people. Consider the workers' contributions into the insurance schemes. In the case of a person earning 35s. a week his payments are equal to 4·5 per cent. if his income; if his earnings are 50s. they amount to 3·2 per cent. But it is estimated that the charge upon many workers' homes for industrial assurance is something like 5 per cent. of an income of £2 a week. In my opinion, if we had a co-ordinated scheme such as I have advocated, we could deal with the matter, which the Government of 1911 unfortunately was afraid to tackle. I am of opinion that the time is ripe for a bold step forward. There is a growing demand for it in the country. Take the case of old age pensions. The Government will have to face the demand and face it soon. Who can deny the justice of the pensioners' case? In the course of the last six weeks I have attended numerous meetings of old age pensioners in my division. At one meeting there were between 400 and 500 old pensioners present, men upon whom the industrial greatness of this country depended, men who have been cast adrift, men and women who are expected to live on 10s. a week.
Not only will the demand for increased pensions come from the working people themselves. There is a growing demand from employers that increased pensions be paid. Two years ago the coalowners in South Wales offered a sum of £50,000 as a Jubilee gift to supplement old age pensions. The miners quickly responded and promised £25,000. That was £75,000 to form the nucleus of a fund. Certain questions were put to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health, and unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that the coalowners and the miners agreed to a levy of 6d. per week in addition to


the money that they had paid, they discovered that it was impossible to have a workable pension scheme upon that income. I believe that pensions by industries will not be successful. The State must come into the scheme and must see that the pensions are paid.
The Government have already fixed a precedent for adequate pensions and the age for retirement. I put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other day. I asked him to state the average age at which certain people retired in this country. He replied that the average age of police officers on retirement was 48 years and the average period for payment of pension was 24 years. Civil Service men retired at 61 and women at 60, men teachers at 62 and women teachers at 61; and all of them retire on pensions which they may not regard as adequate but which are far in excess of the pensions of the industrial workers. There is not a single person on this side of the House who will argue that those public servants who are in receipt of the pensions I have mentioned are not entitled to them. They are entitled to them. But we ask that the Government should be as generous to the people who pay as to the people who are in Government service.
There can be no question that a precedent has been fixed. My Motion asks for an immediate inquiry and asks that there should be no delay in dealing with anomalies. Old age pensions and widows' pensions should be dealt with at once. The Government of 1908 did not wait for the report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law but passed the Old Age Pensions Act. When they introduced it it was a new principle. There is no new principle in increasing the pensions. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government on these matters. There is an Amendment on the Paper and we can see the Government's attitude in it. It refers to the national expenditure upon armaments. That expenditure should not blind the House to its responsibility to the people of whom I have spoken. The Amendment indicates quite clearly that it is to be guns or butter. We say that if there are to be guns there should be no shortage of butter. If war should break out—God forbid that it should—I suppose that the slogan will again be that this country must be a country fit for heroes

to live in—a slogan remembered by Statesmen during the War and forgotten afterwards, but not forgotten by the people. We deny that there is such a shortage of wealth in the country that consideration of the needs of the sufferers must be deferred.
There are over 2,000,000 workers unemployed, ready and willing to produce, but there is no market for their goods; and there are millions of people who are in want. There is money in abundance; the only question is the purpose for which it is required. We have been told that there has been an eightfold increase in the national income during the last 100 years. When the insurance schemes were introduced in 1908, the national income was estimated at £2,000,000,000; and in 1936, we are told, it was £5,276,000,000. In the three years before 1936, the average income increase, we are told was £300,000,000 a year. Who is there that will say that this nation has not the money to meet these needs? We are the wealthiest nation in the world. One of our troubles is that the wealth of our nation is the envy of some of the other nations. In order to show what money there is in this country, I will quote, not the notes issued by the Conservative party, to which reference was made last night, but the "Daily Mail," which stated last year, in dealing with the financial returns for 1936, that there were 77 more millionaires in Britain, that the yield of Surtax was the highest in six years, and that Britain was getting more and more millionaires.
It is no use saying that this nation is at the end of its taxable capacity. Some of us can remember the experience during the War. The nation during that period attempted to catch as many as possible of those who were making huge profits out of the blood and suffering of its people, but at the end of the War there was such an outcry that a Commission had to be appointed to inquire into war wealth. A friend of mine, the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn, was a member of that Commission, and what did he discover? That, after all the expenditure on armaments, this nation, at the end of the War, was better off to the tune of over £4,000,000,000 than it was at the beginning. Many statesmen who were Members of the Government at that time were so ashamed at the profits which were


made during that period that, as is common knowledge, some of those profits were handed back. There is no shortage of money in this country, but it cannot be said that there has been an increase in wages commensurate with the increase in the national income. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in introducing the Old Age Pensions Bill in 1908, referred to the fact that there had not been a census of wages in this country since 1886. In 1886, he said, the average wage of the industrial worker was 24s. 9d. per week; and the "Economist" in August of last year stated that 11,000,000 industrial workers in this country had an average income of not more than £100 a year. Notwithstanding the fact that since 1886 the national wealth of this country has increased five-fold, wages have not been even doubled.
It is impossible for the workers themselves to make this necessary provision. Other nations are far outstripping us in their provision for social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who, I trust, will speak later, will be able to give the House some first-hand information with regard to what is being done in New Zealand, and possibly he will deal with some other countries as well. It is 30 years since the last comprehensive inquiry into the provision of social services for the people of this country. That was the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, which, after four years' deliberation, issued its report in 1909. It was an exhaustive report, not only on Poor Law administration, but on the handling of a wide range of social problems, from the care of the orphan child to the protection of the aged. Since that report was published, the whole face of British social service provisions has been changed. The social insurances have been created, unemployment has become an even greater problem, a host of new problems never contemplated by the Royal Commission have been created; and there has been no attempt to make anything like a comprehensive review of the results of the disordered growth of those services. There have been numerous official inquiries into separate problems, such as those of the Royal Commission on Local Government, the Hadow Committee on Education, the Royal Commis-

sion on Unemployment Insurance, and the Cohen Committee; but there has been no examination of the principle on which the public services are based, of their results, of the question of overlapping, or of their extension. Such an inquiry will not be an easy matter, but it is necessary. It may take some time, and we say that the anomalies to which I have referred should be dealt with in the meantime.
There can, in my opinion, be no case against such an inquiry. But, notwithstanding that fact, if the hon. Gentleman who is going to speak for the Government will give a definite promise that the anomalies, especially those in connection with old age pensions and widows' pensions, will be dealt with in the near future, we shall not press this claim for an inquiry, although we believe such an inquiry to be necessary. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us in the course of his reply whether the Government think that these benefits are adequate. Are there anomalies? Is there overlapping? Why is it that money cannot be found to deal with these difficulties from which the people are suffering, when so much can be found for other purposes? The men and women who are concerned in this matter—the men particularly—are mainly engaged in the great productive industries of the country. The country's greatness depends upon them; the security of the nation from a foreign enemy depends upon them. You can build your ships or aeroplanes, you can make your guns, you can mechanise your Army, but without the courage of the working man, his physical strength and his vision, these instruments will be of very little avail. These men will work, and they will fight for the nation if need be. All that they ask in return is, not a land fit for heroes to live in in the sense in which that phrase was used in 1918, but economic security, a standard of life which will give them economic freedom, a standard of life which will only mean a sufficiency of food, a sufficiency of clothes, good housing, good education and recreation for their children, and leisure for themselves. I ask the House to agree with this Motion, and not to deny to these men that which they ask.

Mr. Denman: May I ask the hon. Member a question with regard to his Motion? I should have asked it a quarter of an hour ago, but I did not wish to interrupt him during his speech. He made a great


point of the wastefulness of industrial assurance, but his Motion does not in any way refer to that. As the Motion stands, it reads:
…should be extended to provide a greater measure of security in times of sickness" —
and so on. Would the hon. Member accept an Amendment to add, after the word "extended," the words "to include funeral benefit," so that the Motion would read:
… should be extended to include funeral benefit and to provide "—
and so on?

Mr. Hall: I will have a word with the hon. Member on that matter. As far as I am personally concerned, I should be inclined to accept an Amendment such as he suggests.

4.26 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the fact that, even in this time of unprecedented calls upon the Exchequer for the purposes of national defence, it has been found possible to maintain and extend the social insurance services, and urges that close and careful review of their administration and their aims should be maintained, with the object of the further improvement of these services, the prevention of overlapping, and the removal of anomalies.
I have listened with profound interest and a large measure of concurrence to what has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). I should not have tabled this Amendment did I not think, in common with a good many others, that the task of a Royal Commission with terms of reference so broad as the hon. Member suggests, would be beyond the wit of man. It would involve half the Cabinet and something like half the total activities of Whitehall. The hon. Member has suggested that the Amendment reflects the attitude of the Government, but I must contradict any idea that I am reflecting the mind of the Government. This is a private Members' Motion, and those who back the Amendment do so on their own responsibility.
This problem of the social insurance services is as important as any which we can discuss, and I am glad that it has been put down for this, the last day on which such Motions can be discussed in

the House. Those who sent us here last time, and who, we all hope, will send us here again, are unquestionably greatly concerned with the subject of the Motion. As was made quite clear by the general applause of hon. Gentlemen behind the hon. Member for Aberdare, this is an electoral question of real moment, which has to be dealt with here, to some extent, in accordance with our party divisions. At the same time it is a matter of very great interest to the public outside, who are more concerned with this particular form of collective security than with the one which we were discussing yesterday, for a sound system of social insurance, affording benefits extending from the cradle or a little before, namely, maternity benefit, to the grave or a little after, namely, death benefit, is as complete a form of collective security as has yet been devised. To continue its development is unquestionably the line of least political resistance, and is also, broadly speaking, in the national interest. But there are certain dangers to be guarded against, and they are not only financial. Social insurance schemes are nowhere so complete or so efficient, and so economical, as they are in the totalitarian States. The reason is that to make the schemes fully efficient and complete involves a great element of regimentation, which has its perils as well as its advantages; we should do well to recognise that fact.
Before I deal with the Amendment, I will, if the House will bear with me, try and stand back and look at the subject in perspective. Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought on the subject, and they correspond very roughly to our party divisions. One of them, so well voiced by the hon. Member for Aberdare, holds that the social insurance services can and should be rapidly extended, attaches little importance to whether the schemes are wholly or mainly contributory, and whether they are administered bureaucratically or through the genuine old-fashioned friendly societies or the trade unions. That school of thought is prepared to take financial risks and assume financial burdens, and to hope for the best.
The second school of thought is one for which Lord Baldwin spoke when, on 14th July, 1930, in his address to a very non-political audience, reprinted in "This Torch of Freedom." he asked (page 49)


three rhetorical questions, and answered none of them—(1) Are the protective social services, as now administered, calculated to encourage inertia or release fresh energies? (2) Do the constructive social services encourage variety, initiative, individual enterprise and exertion? and, (3) Do the public social services, taken as a whole, foster that sense of corporate responsibility upon which our political system rests?
He suggested that Parliament would do well to devote a whole Session to examining the results of what he called "these assaults on human personality." Those for whom the hon. Member for Aberdare speaks would probably give a doubtful affirmative to the last two questions; those for whom Lord Baldwin spoke would give a hesitant negative. I would also like to ask the same questions in another form, namely, do the social insurance services as at present administered—(1) help to maintain the family as the basic unit? (2) help to maintain the self-respect of the insured person during unemployment and sickness? and (3) assist the insured person by his own efforts to avoid destitution or complete dependence when he is past work in the knowledge that his remains will be decently dealt with in a manner which will not bring shame on his relatives, without the intervention of the Poor Law? One has only to ask those three questions to realise how hard it is to give an affirmative reply to all of them. But the history of the last 30 years is a record of real progress in all three directions. The despairing negative is wider of the mark than an unqualified affirmative. We have made great progress with the social services, as the hon. Member for Aberdare made clear. The expectation of life has risen faster in this country than anywhere else, and there is less real ill-health as contrasted with statutory ill-health than there was in 1910. That may fairly be put to the credit of the social services.
The basis of our social services is Christian. They are based upon two lines of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians which, properly translated, read, "Bear ye one another's calamities" or misfortunes and, on the other hand, "each man must bear his own responsibility" or pack. In other words, social insurance schemes should be fully contributory in order to maintain a man's self-respect, and as nearly universal in their applica-

tion as may be, in order that the burden of calamity may be widely spread. Nearly all social insurance contributions are a tax on wages, as all miners know. The more directly this is apparent, the less likely are abuses of the system by individual contributions to be tolerated. No schemes can be of permanent value if they undermine individual responsibility, discourage thrift, loosen family ties, and increase the sense of dependence on the State, particularly of the younger generation. The social services, as at present bureaucratically administered, are not in these respects as effective as when they were voluntarily administered by the contributors themselves through their own membership. This constitutes a greater latent danger to the national welfare than any financial weakness.
Sound administration, to prevent abuses on the one hand and cases of cruel hardship on the other, is of first importance. It cannot be effective unless it is in the hands of men who know who they are dealing with. The hon. Member for Aberdare referred to a whole series of anomalies. They arise from the fact that all the schemes are statutory. Any insurance scheme must have anomalies on the border-line; to remove some is to create others. They arise from the different age limits and different qualifications laid down in different Statutes. When such schemes were administered by friendly societies and trade unions, it was generally possible for those hard cases to receive exceptional treatment. Once Parliament begins to intervene and lay down statutory limits, it begins to create hardships.
I gave the maintenance of the family as the first desideratum of the social services. I hope one day to see family allowances an integral part of our social system. Discrimination against married couples, and particularly against those with children, is inherent in every Finance Act, and in much that is done by public and local authorities. The relief that is given is comparatively small. Many hon. Members on both sides would welcome an inquiry into this particular proposal though I know that the trade unions and the Labour party as a whole are not yet convinced that it is desirable. It is nearly three years since the Statutory Committee on Unemployment Insurance urged such an investigation, seeing that family allowances are an integral element in public


relief and unemployment. I think the time is ripe for inquiry. I hope to see the income limit of the Unemployment Insurance Act raised before long. In view of the fact that the Royal Commission of 1930 recommended raising the limit to £350, while the Statutory Committee in 1934 recommended raising it to £400, the case for action seems to be unanswerable. We have a statutory committee which is an ideal body for such inquiries. I, personally, await with confidence the action that will one day be taken on its recommendation. As recently as 1st November, the Minister of Labour said that the matter was still under consideration. I hope that no news eventually means good news.
I hope, as does the hon. Member for Aberdare, to see the national health insurance scheme further developed, but I question whether it should be extended by raising the income limit. I am by no means sure that it would be welcomed. Panel practice, panel doctors, the whole machinery of National Health Insurance, is doing a great work, but I do not think there is any effective demand for an extension. On the other hand, the present system of administration through 917 approved societies and 6,500 actuarially independent branches is difficult to justify. It is wasteful, and the time is approaching for a national system to be devised. But it is only 10 years since the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance sat, and it had a very large task before it. I should view with alarm the prospect of a Royal Commission which had to inquire not only into that matter but also into the other half-dozen matters referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdare.
The cost of administration of national health insurance in 1937 was 19.63 per cent. of the national revenue. The large approved societies, particularly those run as an annex to their business by industrial insurance societies, are those which give the smallest benefits, and they are in no sense "friendly." There is wasteful competition. There are often a score of different approved societies represented in a single street, and very often 100 in a single town. If I ask the Minister what societies give what benefits, the Minister replies that it is impossible to say, and that it would not be worth the labour to publish a handbook showing what value is given for money by the different societies. When I ask the Minister for a copy

of the Statutes and rules and regulations under the National Health Insurance Act, I am told that the latest edition is that for 1924, although over two years ago I was told that a new edition was in active preparation. The system at the moment requires not an inquiry but a little breathing-space, to allow it to bring itself up to date. The societies are controlled, not by their members, who cannot afford the cost of attending the annual meetings, but, for the most part, by the agents, who should be the servants of the members. The Ministry has only a very vague idea of what the societies are doing, except in regard to their finances.
The provision as regards dental benefit is most unsatisfactory. The Minister will, perhaps, say that the cure for dental trouble is not the services of the dentist but larger supplies of milk. But the wealthier classes are just as badly off as the poor in the matter of teeth. [Interruption.] I am not in a position to dogmatise, but dentists assure me that such is the fact, and the last report on teeth by the London County Council's medical officer certainly gives me that impression. The only reason why the well-to-do do not suffer so much is that they spend three times as much on their dentists as on their doctors, and they count that money well spent.
Another important point is raised by the Government actuary in his report on the Fourth Valuation (Cmd. 5496, July, 1937). He draws attention to the "very high" rate of lapse in the approved societies conducted and managed by the industrial assurance offices as an annex to their commercial business. It is higher by far than in the smaller approved societies. We ought to know more on this subject, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us further information. I have no desire to see a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into that and cognate matters. A good Minister and a good civil servant, we have a plentiful supply of both, are far more likely to reach a useful decision on these matters and to get something done.

Mr. Buchanan: A few months ago the hon. Gentleman, speaking on workmen's compensation, was against action by a Department and claimed that a Royal Commission was indispensable. What has made him change his mind?

Sir A. Wilson: The difference is quite clear. In this case we are dealing with the details of an existing Act, which does not require more than extension or amendment, but in the case of workmen's compensation, I urged repeatedly, as have hon. Members on the Opposition side, the necessity of a profound and complete alteration in the Act itself.

Mr. Buchanan: Could not the Civil Service do that just as easily?

Sir A. Wilson: It would be difficult for any Minister even with the assistance of the Civil Service to launch out upon a new system without any inquiry whatever. I have learned something in the last five years and I am getting rather tired of Royal Commissions and committees, including partisans of both sides, with an impartial chairman, who finally induces them to sign a jejune, anodyne and vacillating report, which has no merit except its unanimity.
I submit that the proper way to remedy some of the anomalies mentioned to-day is not by an inquiry, not even by Ministerial action, but by getting right away from that system and to instal a statutory commission, such as we have for unemployment. The Statutory Commission on unemployment has certain powers vested in it by this House, where under it can alter the scales of benefits in certain directions and make certain modifications, and I can see no reason why the National Health Insurance Act should not be to some extent placed under the administration of a statutory commission, which would have power to make modifications and to rectify anomalies by Orders in Council, subject to ratification by the House.
I turn now to the system of contributory pensions which, as the hon. Member for Aberdare said, is a social insurance against old age, widowhood and the loss of the bread winner. There has been expansion here. The Act of 1936 should add 600,000 people to the list of contributory pensioners. That is a bold and generous Measure. We are paying £21,500,000 to widows and £19,000,000 to pensioners between the ages of 65 and 70, and the working expenses are less than 5 per cent. This is apart from non-contributory pensions, which cost £45,000,000 last year— a substantial figure. Moreover, we have a commission sitting on the subject of spinsters' pensions. These ad hoc com-

mittees are much more likely to produce good results than a roving inquiry, such as that suggested in the Motion.
I hope to see the old age pension raised to a higher figure than at present, on a contributory basis, so that there can be no question of a means test; but as long as we have no sinking fund and we are borrowing for rearmament, it is cruel to suggest to the aged people that the Treasury could safely find £100,000,000 or £200,000,000 in order to produce a scheme which is watertight, and one which would not be subject to the risk of a Geddes, an Inchcape or a May axe.

Mr. Batey: What is the source of the hon. Member's figures?

Sir A. Wilson: There are two schemes, one estimated to cost £200,000,000 and the other £100,000,000. I should not, however, like to bandy words with the hon. Member on the finance of pensions' schemes. Perhaps that opportunity may occur on some other occasion. We have made greater progress in the past five than in the previous 15 years. We are much the heaviest-taxed nation in Europe, yet we have raised the scales of unemployment benefit, and have increased the Unemployment Assistance Board allowances by 20 per cent. during the past three years. We have also extended national health insurance backwards to the school-leaving age, and forwards by contributory pensions at a cost of £1,200,000 a year. So far as we have the power we have shown the will. We have to remember that there has been a very great increase in the proportion of old persons to young persons, and that will increase year by year, making the burden on the younger generation proportionately heavier.

Mr. Batey: What would you do with the old people?

Sir A. Wilson: I can imagine nothing more unfortunate than to tell the older people that the social services can be increased for the benefit of some, regardless of the cost to the whole population, and regardless of the fact that in a few years time another economy axe might come into operation—the worst possible advertisement for Parliamentary institutions. It will not relieve anxiety to start schemes for which we cannot guarantee an assured future.


If I am asked what can be done, I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Member who moved the Motion. I agree that workmen's compensation should be a State Insurance service. Indeed, a Royal Commission will begin to sit to-morrow to deal with that specific point among others, and I hope for great results from its deliberations The idea that workmen's compensation should be a State service was originally put forward by Joseph Chamberlain in 1893, and was heartily endorsed by Sir Charles Dilke. My own researches have entirely confirmed the statement made by the hon. Member that the trade unions were very active at that time in developing the social conscience of this country. But for the work of such men as Joseph Arch, Mr. Broad and Havelock Wilson, progress in these matters would have been very much slower. We all recognise that fact.
The hon. Member also suggested that death benefit should become an automatic benefit under national health insurance. I welcome that statement coming from the Front Opposition Bench; it is the first time that it has been made. This is not a Socialistic idea. It was sponsored in 1876 by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Sir Stafford Northcote who, as chairman and vice-chairman respectively of a Royal Commission, reported that the time had come when a system of State insurance should cover the whole field now known as industrial insurance. I hope that in the not distant future we may secure after 60 years what our grandfathers wanted. It was also part of the original scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he introduced his National Health Insurance Bill.
The expense ratio of death benefit to-day for industrial assurance companies is about 33 per cent. and for collecting societies 41 per cent. If it were part of the National Health Insurance scheme it would not cost more than 5 per cent. Some £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 could be saved there. As the hon. Member said, the premium income is £66,000,000 a year, so that rather more than £5,000,000 a month is taken out of the poorest working class homes to provide for death benefit. That is £1,000,000 a week more than the savings accumulated by means of the Post Office, the

trustee savings banks, and the National Savings Committee, which average £4,000,000 a week. There is money available, and that is one of the ways in which it can be found.
In many parts of England, as the new cost-of-living index will show, insurance money for death benefits approximates to 5 per cent. of the cost of living in the poorer families. The system is very wasteful but enormously profitable. Anatole France once said that civilisation rested on the patience of the poor. Whether or not that statement is true to-day, and I should dispute it, it is true of much industrial insurance business. There is the haunting fear of the pauper funeral. If we could exorcise it by death benefit and intelligent control of burial and funeral costs we should do more good than under other schemes which may appear at first sight more promising. The fear of the pauper funeral is very real. One person in eleven who dies in Great London goes to a pauper's grave— what used to be called the pauper pit—at public expense, in spite of the fact that there are 95,000,000 industrial assurance policies out to-day. This question has also been examined by a very competent committee under Sir Benjamin Cohen; whose recommendations await action.
I hope that I have said enough to justify the view put forward in my Amendment that no general inquiry is necessary. On every point to which the hon. Member referred, with one or two exceptions, inquiry has been already launched or reports have been made on them. The main exception is the anomalies of the national health and pensions schemes, but that can be best dealt with by the Minister, through his Departmental machinery. When the hon. Member asks for a new Ministry, a Ministry of social insurance services, I would beg him to consider very carefully whether the remedy would not be worse than the disease. The Unemployment Fund is a matter primarily for the Ministry of Labour. The National Health Insurance Fund is primarily the concern of the Minister of Health. While I agree that the time has now come, as was suggested in 1918 by a committee presided over by Lord Haldane, when factory inspection and workmen's compensation should be removed from the Home Office and placed in part under the Ministry of Labour and


in part under the Ministry of Health, I should view with great anxiety the establishment of a Ministry of Insurance, which would work in vacuo, without any reference to the social needs or the political implications of the schemes. The responsibility for all pensions, for unemployment funds, for national health insurance funds, and, presumably, for third party insurance and death benefits, would be more than any one Minister could tackle, and he would be a most attractive target at all times for the Opposition. Frankly, whatever party is in power, we ought to get these tangles out of politics, and I submit that the proper course is, as far as possible, to set up statutory commissions to control and administer all contributory schemes.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to put only one or two points. I listened with very great respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) who seemed to want two things—a general inquiry into our whole system of social service anomalies, but, if he cannot get the overhaul from the Home Office, he is quite willing to do without it, provided he can get rid of what he calls the anomalies. When he speaks of removing anomalies he means the raising of the level of payments under the various benefit schemes. What that level should be we have never yet been told. I think the hon. Member gave the figure of what they were at the end of 1936; my information is that they were about £506,000,000 at the end of 1938 and that they had gone up by £50,000,000 per annum since 1931.

Mr. Batey: I cannot understand that £506,000,000, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would explain it.

Sir S. Reed: It is not my figure.

Mr. Batey: Where did you get it?

Sir S. Reed: The figures I gave were the latest available. From where does the money for the payments for the social services come? The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said that it came out of wages, but I am prepared to broaden that statement and to say that it comes out of industry. It is because of that relation of cost to industry that

I want to put a particular point to the House. The foundation of our social services rests on the prosperity of our industry. If that is sapped or weakened, the whole of the superstructure, which we all want to see developed to the highest possible degree, will be in imminent danger of falling to the ground. The prosperity of industry depends upon the maintenance of the export trade. If the export trade declines, the whole condition of our industry and of everything based upon it will be so markedly inferior to what it is to-day that we shall have to consider every aspect of our social structure.
The hon. Member for Aberdare made no estimate of the total cost of the revised scale of social services which he wishes to see established. Nor did he indicate from where would the money come. When hon. Members on any side of the House bring forward proposals for further expenditure on social reform I ask them to consider the likely effects upon industry and export prices. We have heard over and over again most grievous stories from different parts of the House of the depression, suffering and decadence which have come from the loss of export industries. Who has listened unmoved to the tales told in this House of the results of the loss of the great Lancashire export trade in textiles? Why was that trade lost? It was on the question of prices, because manufacturers could not compete on equal terms with others in other parts of the world. That is why other export trades have been lost. We have listened with the utmost attention to the facts of what I believe to be the mass precipitate of exports by the totalitarian States but that is not the only and not, in some ways, the greatest danger. There are other trade dangers which have their origin in America, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and, far more sinister still, Japan. I do not think that anyone would not join with hon. Members opposite in wishing to raise the social services to the highest pitch that we can bear, in season and out of season, in bad as well as in good years, but I would ask them to make their calculations on facts obtained from their own expert office, which is exceedingly efficient, and always to consider what the effects of their proposals will be upon our manufacturing costs before they commit themselves, in the


warmness of their hearts. [An Hon. Member: "What about the cost of armaments?"] I am not talking about armaments, but I am trying to look ahead to all the years before us to what our policy with regard to the social services will have to be, as far as we can see.
We have heard protests against the loss of much of our shipbuilding industry. Why has that industry been partially lost? Again, on the question of prices and on that of the wage-scale and other ancillary conditions. We cannot with all our skill produce ships to-day at the same rate as other countries. I represent the point of view of the overseas buyer, and of the man who is trying to make the export trade possible. In the last resort I may get a margin of trade for British goods at a higher price because they are British and because customers know their quality, but if the cost is up by as much as 40 per cent. it stands to reason that overseas buyers will not, and cannot, continue to bear that difference. If we raise the cost of the burden we put upon industry, and so raise industrial costs and export prices to the point where our industries are unable to compete at all, our last state may well be worse than our first.
A spokesman from the Front Opposition Bench said on Thursday that we should raise wages 20 per cent. and unemployment pay by 20 per cent., but I ask hon. Members from industrial areas, from the textile areas in particular what the effect would be of raising wages by 20 per cent. forthwith. A very large number of our overseas customers have only a low economic status and, however good our articles, even if they are intrinsically worth the higher price, those customers cannot buy them unless they have a low range of values; otherwise you are up against a consumers' strike. That is one reason for the success of the enormous drive of Japanese industry in the Eastern Levantine countries. In all earnestness and sincerity I ask those who speak from industrial areas in favour of raising the burdens on industry, however great their desire maybe to do so, never to lose sight of the effect of their suggestions upon the export trade of this country, or they may weaken or destroy the social services we have to-day, and, even more, the great things which we want to have to-morrow.

Mr. Montague: The same things were said 100 years ago.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I have listened closely to the speeches with the idea of approving of one or two things. I heard the Mover of the Amendment remind us of the Scriptural admonition that we should bear one another's burdens, and then it struck me forcibly that it might be well if hon. Members bore that injunction in mind in relation to the subjects we discuss in this House. I have had 28 years' experience of the administration of National Health Insurance, and because of it I shall say nothing at all about it, its difficulties, its anomalies or its advantages. That angle of the matter will be dealt with by my colleague who will finish the Debate this evening. I listened with attention to the last speech, but it was a dissertation upon trade, intended to prove that trade could not bear this, that or the other burden. I would point out to the hon. Member that the Motion proposes that the social services should be extended to provide
a greater measure of security in times of sickness, unemployment, widowhood and old age.
Questions relating to the contributory pensions have been raised. I am concerned with the pension which is now paid at 70 years of age. Carrying out in his writings the Scriptural admonition, Robert Burns said:
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn.
I want to give, out of my actual experience of life in my neighbourhood, and not out of research departments or the proceedings of committees of inquiry, why I think this Motion calls for the immediate attention of this House. Life's mosaics are to be found in every constituency and they are most graphic when the human side of life is being told, and when we are brought up against the reality of old age. We realise that there are many people of 70 years of age still living in poverty-stricken conditions and who are, in this year 1939, just managing to keep themselves alive. I have before my mind at this moment the instance of two men who both volunteered in the War. They were both prepared to lay down their lives for their country as any man will be who thinks this country is worth fighting for in the time of necessity. One young man came home wounded and died of his


wounds. The other, a son of the same father, died on the field of Flanders. The father was about 66 years of age. The War Office sent a beautiful bronze tablet, about 18 inches in dimension, to the father of John Finnigan, stating that the boy had died and that the tablet was awarded to him for his valour on the field. The medallion was inscribed, "For Valour." Think of the tragedy of this father who gave two sons to the nation. This old man received a pension of 5s. a week in respect of the loss of one of his sons. He had to pay 3s. 6d. per week for lodging and 6d. a week for insurance. He had an old age pension of 10s. out of which 4s. had to be deducted, thus leaving 6s. to supplement the 5s. allowed him by a grateful nation.

Mr. R. Morgan: Was the father dependent upon that son before his son was killed in the War?

Mr. Logan: Yes. I do not want to take up the time of the House in discussing the merits or demerits of these cases in general, but I want to place the details of this particular case before the House, and not be contradcited.

Mr. Morgan: It is a very hard case.

Mr. Logan: I appealed to the Minister and was told that he had no power to deal with the case, and that the man must go to the Poor Law for assistance. The Poor Law authorities took into account the 5s. pension allowed to him in respect of the loss of his son, and said that they could not give any further relief. A father who gives two sons to the service of the nation ought to be allowed to live in comfort. Is this the way that a grateful nation ought to treat the father of two such sons? I know of cases where fathers who were killed in the Great War were in a position to leave great estates and titles for their sons and others to enjoy for generation after generation, but the poor remain poor. It is because I know of the dire straits of these poor people that I plead that this anomaly should be done away with expeditiously.
I have heard discussions with regard to relativity, but very few people seem to understand that subject. When Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in the year 1876, talked about a certain Measure, he said that they ought not to be disconsolate, but a period of 63 years has passed since

then, and perhaps if we only wait a little longer, say, another 60 years, this old fellow of 70 will be 163 when his case comes to be dealt with.
It is because I agree with the point of view that was sincerely put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), that I ask the consideration of the House to this definite case. I defy any hon. Member in the House to say that this is not a case that should receive immediate attention. I have a letter from the Minister of Health, who, while deploring the position, tells me that he has not the power to deal with such a case, and that the public assistance committee is the statutory body, and he has no right to interfere. Therefore, I believe that I have a right to bring this particular case to the notice of the House. I bring it because I can prove every detail. This case is one of the cameos from the City of Liverpool. On Merseyside there are hundreds of such cases of men who went to the Great War. I have in my constituency men who returned to their duties in the Mercantile Marine repeatedly after having been torpedoed. This case calls for immediate attention, and with all due respect to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), I do not want to wait 63 years before this case is dealt with. If this is the speed of legislation, I do not wonder that young men do not want to come to this House. It would appear that, when men leave their jobsoutside, they come to the House of Commons to sleep, and not to legislate. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be a Rip Van Winkle, let him consider the facts of the case that I have placed before him to-day. I appeal to hon. Members to remember the words of Robert Burns:
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn.
and to play their proper part in this House and support this Motion which has been so ably put forward. It contains not only the breath of life, but human, Christian principles.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I do not think that any Member in this House is likely to deny his full sympathy with the case presented by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), but I would like to crave the indulgence of the House in order to deal with the wider aspects of this question. I am very glad


that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) has utilised his good fortune in the ballot to enable us to have a discussion on this subject. It is one of the sad misfortunes of the times in which we live, disorderly and savage as they are, that so much not only of our money and our resources is taken up in considering matters of defence, but that so much of our time and energies is also devoted to matters very far away from our domestic concerns. It is refreshing, and certainly very useful that we should be able once in a way to devote our attention to the condition of the people.
The social services of this country are most impressive in their scope and extent. They touch 30,000,000 of our citizens in one way or another, and the expenditure on them, which has been multiplied by 12 since the early part of the century, now reaches something like £480,000,000. We have travelled a long way since the Liberal Government of 1908 in their Budget of that year, and subsequently the Budget of 1910, laid the foundation upon which this super-structure has been built. We have a very great advantage in considering these matters to-day in the complete change of atmosphere and outlook which has taken place since those days. It then was a difficult and almost impossible matter to get the initial step of the old age pensions legislation taken at all.
When I was refreshing my memory the other day, I could not help thinking what a revolution has taken place in the minds of the parties in this country since those days. When a small old age pension was proposed, Mr. Asquith was informed that the bill would cost the nation as much as a world war; that it would weaken the moral fibre of the nation and diminish the self-respect of our people. The best course, it was said, was to throw upon His Majesty's Government the sole and entire responsibility for a Measure which they regarded with great apprehension, and which they feared might have far-reaching and disastrous effects upon the future of this country. Another speaker said that the Bill would involve an immense increase of taxation, perpetuate poverty, lower wages and discourage thrift.
When we set ourselves to climb a hill at the end of which we hope to offer security for the people of this country, it is encouraging to look back on the way

we travelled and consider the matter not in the light of prejudice, but with regard to the ways and means that are available to carry out our projects. Since those days the social services in this country have grown up. It is not true that they have grown up haphazard, but they have been added to according to the administrative fashion of the particular time and according to some stress—economic or political demands. They have never been planned in their development, but they have been added to here and there as the necessity seemed to demand. In the early part of the last century the principle was that the local authorities should be the sole administrators of works of assistance of one kind or another. That was changed by the Health Insurance Act, and the fashion became more prevalent for all these things to be administered from the centre, and in 1934 we completed the last process by starting the Unemployment Assistance Board, planting it down among a number of existing services and taking away from the local authorities much of their time-honoured duty of relieving and helping those who were in need. The hon. Member remarked that the system was not understood by the people who benefited from it. That is true. I do not think it is understood by Parliament itself. It requires a considerable study to understand the relationship between all these services. The whole system is filled with stresses and strains, overlappings and anomalies, so much so that I say without the slightest hesitation that we are not getting value for our money to-day. That is an important fact which must be recognised.
There are many ways in which we may look for improvement. How is it to be brought about? The hon. Member suggested a Royal Commission. Certainly some inquiry is needed. If this system does not require an inquiry it is about the only thing in this country which does not. But it does require an inquiry, and the question is what sort of an inquiry? Is it to be a Cabinet inquiry? Certainly not. The Cabinet could not begin to think of an inquiry into this matter under present conditions. Is it to be a Departmental inquiry? There again, the Departments are so heavily engaged in their own jobs that they cannot look over the fence and inquire what is being done by other Departments. In my opinion a Departmental inquiry would be absolutely


useless. The hon. Member favoured something in the nature of a Royal Commission, and I shall support the Amendment rather than the Motion. In fact, I do not think there is any occasion for an Amendment to a Motion of this kind. All the facts which require to be known about social conditions are readily available; they have been inquired into already. If there is no co-ordination we shall go blundering on spending money which might be available for the beneficiaries.
If a Departmental and Cabinet inquiry are no good, and if a Royal Commission would delay things far too long what remains? Why not follow the analogy and appoint a statutory committee to survey continuously the administration of the social services? That is a possibility. We might have a statutory committee reporting to the Cabinet as a whole. I think that is a proposal which should be considered. Or we might have a special committee, a general headquarters staff for the social services, whose business it would be to survey developments continuously. If we were to set up a body of that kind I would ask hon. Members to consider what the functions of such a committee of inquiry would be. They would have to give thought continuously, in the course of their work, to the basic principles governing the relationship of the various public services to one another and of the social services as a whole to social and economic policy. They would have to consider consecutively the administration and financial structure of the services in order to secure more efficient and economic working.
The third task to which such a body would devote itself would be to draw attention to the anomalies and gaps to be dealt with and, what is very important, recommend the order of priority in which these gaps should be filled, recommending to the Cabinet and leaving the final decision to Parliament. They would be called upon to undertake what is a most urgent public task, an investigation into the relationship of the Unemployment Assistance Board to the Ministry of Labour. That is one of the outstanding anomalies at the present time. The Unemployment Assistance Board was given statutory powers to bring help to people in need, but these powers are enjoyed concurrently by other authorities. There is a lack of demarcation,

there is often competition between them, and there is therefore a tendency for one statutory authority to say that if this body is going to do the job there is no occasion for them to bother about it any more. In Liverpool, where we had an inquiry, it was found that one in five persons getting help from the Unemployment Assistance Board was in contact with some other authority either statutory or voluntary. Think of the amount of overlapping and the unnecessary expenditure which arises in that way.
May I quote an example in the north-west London Appeal Tribunal area. In that area of the Unemployment Assistance Board there are some 15 different local authorities. In the performance of their duties they have to give extra nourishment to school children and expectant mothers. Some boroughs give this assistance free, others give it according to an income scale. There are about 15 different income scales varying according to the receipts of the family, and the consequence is that the Unemployment Assistance Board in. that area have to make about a dozen different calculations of family incomes and scales in order to deal with the matter. Could anything be more ineffective or futile or wasteful than a system of that kind? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is not a muddle-minded man and he cannot approve of such slipshod, disorderly processes. I would ask him to invite his colleagues to say how much longer this is to go on. I think this is one of the reasons why the Unemployment Assistance Board costs so much more than the same service did when it was performed by the Minister of Labour under the transitional arrangements. Some inquiry, therefore, would not come amiss. It should not be a spasmodic inquiry, but a continuous review to root out these matters and set the system on a better basis.
The vital question in regard to our social services is whether we should deal with it piecemeal as it arises or whether we should recast the whole system on a different basis. Certainly if we were setting up a new system I do not think we should do it in the way it has been done. Take old age pensions. I think we should undoubtedly start upon a national superannuation scheme, pensions being of an adequate rate and payable contingent on


the individual retiring from his occupation. I do not believe it is realised that the State is paying, according to contract, pensions to 400,000 people who are in full work. A little mental arithmetic will show that that amount is a considerable sum, and as we are limited most seriously in our resources for the payment, it is a matter of consideration whether if we were starting again we should do it on these lines. But we have to deal with the situation as it is. Every hon. Member has spoken with great sympathy and feeling of the lot of the old age pensioner. I do not want to see their position left over until we have had a report of a Royal Commission; nor is that necessary.
The lot of the Single old age pensioner, living alone, is the most pitiable in this country. You cannot get a room in my part of the country for less than 5s. a week, often it is a little more, and to live in those conditions is simply a continuous and monotonous calculation of how to make ends meet. There is no freedom of movement except where they go on their own feet. It is not life, it is a sub-human existence, in which the wearing out of a pair of boots and the necessity of a winter overcoat, which is an incident to most of us, is a catastrophe which casts its shadow a long way in advance. When the Old Age Pensions Act was introduced by Mr. Asquith, and in 1925 when the present Prime Minister introduced the Contributory Pensions Scheme, the State assumed responsibility for old age. Mr. Asquith definitely did so, and between the introduction of pensions in 1908 and 1913, the number of individuals in receipt of out relief diminished in a most significant manner. Out relief to the old was almost done away with. Then with advancing standards and changing conditions, the relief situation altered, but when the present Prime Minister introduced his contributory scheme in 1925 the money paid by local authorities in supplementing old age pensions had increased substantially. In his Second Reading speech the present Prime Minister pointed out that:
There will be an immediate relief to the rates of something like £3,000,000 a year, which will gradually rise to something like £7,000,000 a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1925; col. 90, Vol. 184.]
At the end of another 10 years that situation had completely altered, and

what I think should be done now, done in the next Budget, is for the State to takeover this liability and make these people independent of poor relief. I have said that the expenditure on our social services amounts to £480,000,000 a year. I am certain that if the State set up an inquiry into the matter, they would save at least 1 per cent. of that sum, £4,800,000, and that saving would enable the State to take over this liability from the public assistance committee and render this section of the old age pensioners free from liability in that respect. The position is very serious indeed from the point of view of local authorities, and the Government would get cordial support from them if they proposed to take a measure of that kind. In the city of Liverpool the sum spent in supplementing old age pensions is over £2,000 a week and in Birkenhead it is in proportion. In Glasgow, according to some figures given by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) the amount paid out is £355,000.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: There is a point in what the hon. Gentleman is saying which rather puzzles me. His remarks seem to imply that there is something extremely disgraceful in receiving assistance, in destitution or old age, from the rates, whereas there is nothing disgraceful in receiving assistance from the taxes. It seems tome that there is no disgrace in either case. If a person in old age or in destitution receives assistance from the rates, there is no disgrace, and certainly there is no more disgrace in receiving it from the rates than in receiving it from the taxes. The question of disgrace depends upon the reasons why the person falls into destitution.

Mr. White: Certainly, I did not use the word "disgrace," and I entirely agree that any distinction such as that to which the hon. Member has referred is illogical and ought not to exist. Nevertheless, that feeling does exist on the part of the recipients of assistance. I have lived sufficiently long among poor people to know that there are some people who would rather starve than go for assistance. In one case I had to take a taxi-cab, call at the applicant's house, induce her to get into the taxi-cab, and take her to the public assistance office, having made a special appointment with the head officer, before I could get her to take the


necessary steps to prevent herself from starving. I do not differ from the hon. Member, but he is as well aware as I am that there is a deep-seated prejudice against receiving relief from the parish, as it is called, although perhaps that prejudice is dying out now, because there is nothing dishonourable in receiving such assistance. I think the suggestion I have made is one which, even in these days of stress and difficulty, could easily be carried into effect.
We ought also to extend the Contributory Pensions Act. I believe this could be done within the present resources of the State. We cannot go back on the contracts we have made with the 400,000 people under the contributory pensions scheme, who are drawing benefit as a right, and are continuing to work, and may do so for a long time. I have seen schemes which would enable a supplementary benefit to be paid at the age of 65 and a pension to be paid to the wife of a man on his reaching the age of 65, if she was over 50, thus giving them an income on which they could retire in reasonable comfort. There are two ways in which such a scheme could be financed. First, it is conceivable that it might be financed by means of direct taxation; but having regard to present conditions, probably the only practical way in which it could be financed would be by means of an extension of the contributory system.
If there was an inquiry such as I have described continuously investigating and correlating different social services, they might decide to investigate whether there is any reserve of contributory power in industry in this country. There is no Minister in the House who can tell us anything on that subject. Such a body of inquiry might say—what I believe to be true—that the Unemployment Insurance contributions are too high. It might be that 2d. could be taken from those contributions and devoted to increasing the pension to be paid at the age of 65. It is well within the range of probability that an additional 3d. a week paid by the three parties to the contributory pensions systems would enable an adequate pension of £1 a week to be paid at the age of 65 to those coming under the contributory system.
I am very glad that this Debate is taking place. We should discuss these subjects at great length and in great detail. I have tried to give some picture of the disorderly nature of our social services. The greatest thing that can be said of the social services is that, in spite of the way in which they have grown up and in spite of the compartmentalised method of administration, somehow or other they work, and confer a great benefit on our people. Moreover, they provide a spending power which is a source of great strength to the country in times of economic stress. I believe that one of the reasons this country met the economic difficulties of 1931 so much better than the United States of America was that there was always this steady body of expenditure being made by these people. The social services represent a very important economic contribution to the strength of the country. A body of inquiry such as I have mentioned would no doubt turn their attention to the claims of spinsters for pensions at the age of 55. In many quarters there are very strong arguments and demands for something to be done in that direction. I mention that as the type of extension of the social services which such a body might consider and on which it might report to Parliament.
In considering these questions, we are at the present time confronted with difficulties owing to the financial stress and the matters of which the Prime Minister reminded us yesterday, which compel us to waste our substance, not on the means of life, but on the means of destruction; but I submit, without fear of contradiction, even in this House—where one can say very little without being contradicted —that an extension of the social services and an extension of old age pensions on a proper basis would indeed be a means of defence, for in the long run, if democracy is to survive, it will be only because the people who live under that system believe that it is worth saving. As long as we have hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners living the sub-human existence which I have described, and 2,000,000 unemployed people, there must be many people who, if they were asked to save democracy, would ask themselves whether it is worth saving. I maintain that, in spite of all our difficulties, we must not cease to devote a considerable


proportion of time and thought to the development of the social services, because the best investment for the nation's money is the happiness, health and efficiency of our people.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: This Debate has been worth while, if for no other reason than the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who moved the Motion. The hon. Gentleman performed a public service in making his speech to-day, and I wish to pay a tribute to him for the remarkable method in which he placed the facts before us. As to the Debate itself, it seems to me that it would have been better to devote more time to this Motion and possibly less time to the Debate which took place on Monday and Tuesday of this week. On those two days, we hammered away at the question of a loan in connection with National Defence, and to-day we are spending comparatively little time on the subject of the social services. I cannot say that I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken. I would remind hon. Members above the Gangway, who are to-day stating frankly the need for increased pensions and improved conditions of life for the people, that although it may be true, as they argue and as I believe, that we have sufficient wealth for those purposes, yesterday for good or for ill hon. Members almost unanimously—for there were only a half a dozen dissentients—agreed to take £800,000,000 of the wealth of this country and devote it to armaments. It may be that there is something left, but £800,000,000 is to go for armaments, and there will be £800,000,000 less for other things.

Sir Francis Fremantle: It is a loan.

Mr. Buchanan: It may be a loan, but we have to pay the interest on it and to meet the capital; and although there may be something left, there will be £800,000,000 less for other things. One cannot get away from that fact. I have opposed these National Defence loans and I have opposed national service, and I feel that hon. Members, by doing what they did yesterday, were depriving the common people of certain necessities of life which otherwise they would have received. Hon. Members have spoken about a Royal Commission in connection with this Motion, but the Motion does not ask for a Royal Commission. On hearing

hon. Members refer to a Royal Commission, I read the Motion again, but found that it does not mention either a Royal Commission or any other commission. All that the Motion does is to call attention to certain anomalies in the social services, and the need for co-ordination.

Sir F. Fremantle: It asks for an inquiry.

Mr. Buchanan: It does not ask for a Royal Commission, but it states that an inquiry as to how the purposes enumerated in the Motion are to be achieved should be instituted without delay. As to the anomalies, I would like to say a few words about the contributory system that is now in being. Some time ago, after a good deal of research, the Labour party produced a scheme for pensions, which had as its object £1 a week for a man and 15s. for his wife. There was attached a condition that they should retire from work, a condition which was fair; and there was a further condition that they should contribute—I am speaking from memory—6d. or Is. a week. I believe that in the matter of contributions out of wages, we have reached the limit, and for that reason, I do not think the Labour party's scheme is feasible.
Some time ago, the Board of Health in Scotland made an inquiry into contributions to insurance which the workers paid out of their wages. They took a typical case in my division of a man, wife and three children. They found that the man was contributing Is. 9d. a week in health and unemployment insurance, which was compulsorily deducted from his wage of £3 10s.; 4d. a week for infirmary; 1s. 2d. to his trade union; 6d. each to insurance for his three children, and 5d. each for himself and his wife. In all, he was making contributions to insurance amounting to 8s. a week, and paying 8s. for rent out of an income of £3 10s., and I maintain that that is far too much to take from his income for those particular purposes. If one deducts from a man's income for those purposes, one reduces the sum that he has to spend on the necessities of life. For my part I say frankly that for an extension of insurance you will have to look to the proposal on which the Trades Union Congress originally gave evidence, namely, the extension of a non-contributory system to the common people of this country.
I would like the House of Commons to face, not merely the question of increased pensions but also the position under the present system. We forget that every day a large number of people are getting no pensions at all. When we talk about a pension of £1 a week, let us not forget that there are masses of people who do not even get the 10s. a week. Take the man who when unemployment comes, says, "I am not going on to unemployment benefit. I have got £100 and I will start a small business." He starts a small business; he does not become a voluntary contributor, and at the end of two years he is out of insurance. If he dies, his widow and family will get nothing, though he may have contributed far more than many others in whose cases pensions are granted.
Take the case of a man who says, "I am not going to walk about the streets here. I will try my luck in America and I will send home enough to keep my wife and family." He does so. Then he comes back to this country, works for a few months and dies. There is no pension for his widow and children unless he has been back long enough to have contributed and to have got 104 stamps. An unemployed man may be stamping at the exchange and the approved society have the right to come along and put that man out at any time after two years, on the ground that they think—not that the law thinks, but that they think—he is no longer within genuine insurance. There is no pension —nothing—in that case. A whole range of such anomalies exists, and to my mind one of the first things to be done is to see that even the 10s. pension is paid to great masses who are now denied it.
I turn to the national health insurance system and here I think something ought to be done. I am the chairman of a trade union approved society which, I claim, is an efficiently run society. Our trade of pattern-making is one in which the sickness rate and the unemployment rate are not high. We pay £1 a week, we pay extra for maternity cases, we pay convalescence benefits and send people to homes and so forth, and we pay for optical and dental treatment. But then take the cases of the moulders, the craftsmen who work alongside the

pattern-makers. Their work is different and is done under much worse conditions and the rate of sickness and the rate of unemployment are both higher in their case. The moulders' society is just as efficiently run as our society, but because of the higher incidence of sickness and unemployment the moulder gets no additional benefits and is paid 5s. a week less. He is not granted optical or dental treatment, not because of any inefficiency in the running of the society but merely because of the fact that the moulder has to meet a heavier incidence of sickness and unemployment than his fellow-worker beside him. Both pay the same contributions. What hon. Member would stand for a higher rate of unemployment benefit being paid to one tradesman than is paid to another? Who would defend a proposal that one class of men should get a higher rate of standard benefit for unemployment than another body of men? Why, then, should that anomaly exist in health insurance?
Then there is this question which I would raise with the Minister. Approved societies now are all looking for good lives. That is their system. A man comes along who follows an occupation in which there is unemployment, and the approved society say "We do not want him," He cannot become a member of an approved society. He does not even get the benefits which are laid down by law —the 15s. a week. The approved societies simply will not have him. As for women, you have almost to bribe them to take women. No approved society will look at women workers, particularly when they get up in years, and their only entry to health insurance is through the Post Office as deposit contributors, and all they get in benefit is the amount which they pay in to the Post Office. They are refused health insurance membership; they get only what they pay in and as they are paying in as little as possible they get hardly anything at all out of it. That is the system at the present time. There is no appeal against refusal to allow these people to become members; they are simply left derelict. I say that entry into health insurance ought to be as free and as easy as entry into unemployment insurance and that there should be no differentiation between one trade and another.
We find this position arising in connection with approved society work.


When trade was bad, men and women went in for dental treatment where it was available. They took that opportunity of having their teeth seen to. But when trade becomes good and people get employment, then they take the view that dental attention is not an absolute necessity. The question of eye-sight becomes the dominating factor and they want to get optical treatment. Those who are in approved societies which pay for optical treatment can get the treatment which will allow them to keep their jobs, but a man who possibly needs it more, but who is only a deposit contributor, or who is only in one of the collecting societies, is unable to get optical treatment. Why should these things exist? On the question of an inquiry I would point out that we have already had the committee of inquiry into health insurance appointed by the Labour Government of 1924. The late John Wheatley set up a committee on national health insurance and there is a whole range of reforms which that committee suggested and which could be applied to-day to eliminate many anomalies, if the Minister cared to tackle the question. There was also a committee on health and industrial insurance which recommended a number of reforms. We do not need extra commissions. Commissions have been set up and have made reports and if those reports were put into practice to-morrow we could do away with many of the anomalies which exist.
It seemed to me that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment took different grounds of argument. The Seconder of the Amendment spoke about the export trade. With all due respect to him I am not going to discuss export trade to-day. I wish he had discussed export trade yesterday when he was agreeing to the handing out of £800,000,000. I cannot follow the arguments of hon. Members who agree to an expenditure of £800,000,000 for arms, without a word about the export trade, but when they are asked for one-eighth of that sum in order to promote human happiness immediately shout out about export trade. I could follow the logic of saying, "Export trade" yesterday and saying it again today, but I cannot follow the logic of those who say nothing about export trade when we are discussing the means of death and destruction but shout out about it when we are discussing questions of human life and happiness.
The Mover of the Amendment said that the Government were faced with the spending of this money on armaments and he was not sure what was to be done. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) is not in his place because he has made many researches into these questions and written many books. But having watched him for this last six months I would warn him of the things which some of us are thinking about him. We are beginning to think that instead of being the research worker that we all thought he was, he is becoming a kind of Government hack. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I would warn him that for a man of his standing— [Interruption.]. I am only saying what is in the minds of some of us and it is as well that he should know it rather than that we should hide it. We have watched him on workmen's compensation and various other-subjects and we think that he has now become—because of lack of talent on the Government side, because there are so very few on the Government side able to do it—the leading excuse finder for the Government doing nothing at all, and he had better watch or the fate which has befallen others may befall him.
Three or four things are needed. First we need to tackle the issue of those decent men and women who are prevented today from getting any pensions at all. Why should a woman who has been left a widow with three children be punished merely because her late husband failed to send in his card and particulars? Why should the vengeance of the State be wreaked upon innocent women and children merely because of some alleged negligence on the part of the late husband? The first thing to do is to sweep away the stupid and illogical anomalies which deprive widows and many aged people of pensions even at the present rate. Secondly, I think the time has arrived when the State ought to consider the amount of the pensions. Already the State is practically paying £1 a week pension through the Poor Law when account is taken of the cost of the Poor Law administration. The indictment is not that the Poor Law authorities are paying it, but that they are not paying enough. Most authorities are much too mean and ought to be paying more. It is not that a person should be ashamed of taking it


from the Poor Law. Jewish people, for instance, on grounds of belief will not go to the Poor Law authorities, but I have constantly told them that they ought to go to the Poor Law and claim that to which they are entitled. There is no disgrace in claiming it. It is part of public money, the only thing being that it is local instead of national.
There is this difference, however, that a person who is living under a generous local authority will receive more than a person who is living under another local authority. A generous local authority pays to a married couple 32s. 6d. a week, that is to say, 12s. 6d. in addition to their pension. That is paid out of public money. But just across the boundary there may be another local authority which would pay only 7s. 6d. or 5s. out of the same public money. Therefore the case for a national increase is two-fold, first on the ground of the justice of the claim, and, secondly, on the ground that decent people ought not to be treated differently for old age pension purposes, because they happen to live in one place instead of another. Why should these differences exist?

Mr. Hopkinson: I take it that the hon. Gentleman's question is not purely rhetorical and perhaps I may answer it. Surely the explanation is this.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is not entitled to set up an argument. He is only entitled to ask a question.

Mr. Hopkins on.: Then I am afraid I shall not be able to pursue the point at this stage.

Mr. Buchanan: You really have no health insurance system at all. Why should certain people be covered by unemployment insurance or health insurance, and others not be covered? Why should a policeman or a teacher in regular, constant employment not pay unemployment insurance and a builder be subject to it? I always thought insurance meant that everybody at work ought to pay into a common pool, and those in steady work just as much as those not in steady work, and one of the things to be faced, if you are to have insurance, is to bring within the fold of unemployment and health insurance every available penny that you can and every person in the community.
Lastly, one of the crying needs is an increase of pension. You have had commissions and inquiries enough, but it is a question of someone or other co-ordinating what has already been done by inquiries and putting it into effect and into legislation. I suggest that you do not need a Royal Commission, but that there are in this House capable Members who would devote their time to it on a Committee upstairs for, say, six months, and I venture to say that men drawn from all ranks in this House, given the will and the desire to do it, would no doubt at an early date produce a scheme which would mean raising the standard, sweeping away the anomalies, and making for a set of circumstances that would make this nation greater than all the guns of other countries can make them, because the greatness of Britain will not depend on its Armies, Navies, Prime Ministers, or Kings, but on the homes and the lives of the common people.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. R. Morgan: I would like first of all to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), who seemed to think I was criticising what he was saying about the 5s. a week. As a matter of fact, one of the things that I am greatly in favour of and that I think we ought to increase is the old age pension. I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put his finger on the spot when he said that the way to deal with the question that is before the House is to send it upstairs to a Committee, where we might examine all these anomalies and these claims for extending the social services. After all, it is the different Ministries which are responsible, and it is our job to see that they are brought up to a full sense of their responsibility. I think there has been a very doleful note struck throughout this Debate so far. I know there are these anomalies and hard cases, but, after all is said and done, I suppose there is no other country which proportionately carries out its social services on so generous a scale as does this country. I was rather alarmed when the last speaker, with so much of whose speech I agreed, kept criticising the national loan of £800,000,000 for Defence, and I must say that I parted company with him there, because the social services and everything else of that nature would be of no use unless your country was safely guarded,


and I think that on reflection the hon. Member would possibly agree with that.
I agreed with that part of the hon. Member's speech in which he said that there is a large number of people in this country who get no benefit at all. I do not like to call them the lower middle class, which is a terrible phrase, but I refer to that class whose claims seem never to reach this House, though we all know of their hardships. A large number of these people have no unemployment pay, no sick benefit, and no old age pension, and we could well afford to set up a Committee to examine how we could extend State benefit to them. It is true that the last voluntary contribution scheme that we have just passed' will bring in another 2,000,000.
I am not concerned too much about the extraordinary additional expense that would be thrown on the nation. I believe it is not a matter of urging the country to spend more, but that it is more a case of greater efficiency and co-ordination, and here I am bound to make a comment which may cause some distress to certain approved societies, but I think that in the case of some approved societies there has been a sort of bureaucracy which wants seriously looking into. The hon. Member for Gorbals threw one or two rather sharp lights on what goes on in these different societies, and I have had a case recently of an insured young woman who happened, after a serious illness, to be sent away to the seaside to a friend's house. She received a letter from her society to say, "As you have gone away without our permission, you are suspended from benefit." They shelter themselves behind a technicality like that, and I think it is unworthy of a great society. What we really want to see in this country is that the principle of insurance against the three grim spectres, as we call them, of sickness, unemployment, and old age, should be applied in a national scheme of tripartite contributory insurance in every works and business throughout the country. It ought to be made compulsory.
I wish now to say a word or two about the question of people with large families, because something ought to be done in this matter of family allowances. There is always the danger that family allowances tend to depress the basic scale, and whether that will get opposition from hon.

Members opposite I do not know, but we have to face some very hard facts. In the next 40 years, if we are to rely upon statistics, we are going to have our population fall from 45,000,000 to 33,000,000, and I see that young people, that is, those under 15, are prophesied to fall from 10,000,000 to 4,000,000. These are very serious figures, but they also show us the need for extending our social services as far as we can, and I hope that if this Debate has done nothing else, it has brought to the Minister in charge a realisation of the very real problems that affect the people. We all have our postbags every morning, almost without fail, or anyway every week, with some complaint about the effects or ineffectiveness of the social services. These anomalies ought not to exist.
I could give case after case. I have a case that I am putting up to the Minister this week, and it is a very hard case. But how we are going to alter them without a Royal Commission—and I see no argument for a Royal Commission—I do not know. A committee of some kind to go into these anomalies in this House would be rendering a great national service, and I believe that this is an occasion on which there is no need for any party Division in this House. Surely both sides can agree that if these anomalies and hardships exist, they should be remedied forthwith. I hope there will be no attempt made in this House to make party capital on these questions, but that we shall agree in asking the Minister to see to it that these things are remedied in the easiest and quickest way possible.

6.26 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I am sure those of us on this side will welcome the support of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) in asking for this inquiry. As I have listened to this Debate, which has been so far exclusively confined to the male Members of the House, I have observed that there has been one significant omission, and that is that nobody has stressed the claims of the dependants of the insured workers for national health insurance benefit. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) did say there was discrimination between trade and trade, but I claim also that there is discrimination between sex and sex, and although I realise that there are many anomalies, although, of course, I


support the claim of the old age pensioners for an augmentation of their pension, at the same time I ask this House to consider the claims of the dependants of the insured workers. The National Heatlh Insurance Act was introduced in 1911, and 28 years have passed, and still the wives and children of insured workers are excluded from benefit.
Some people may argue that the children obtain some measure of supervision at school, but many of us know that in fact it is not in any way comprehensive. The children actually have a free examination during their school life up to 14 years of age, and there is a clinic to which they can be sent, but there is no treatment of which the mothers of these children can avail themselves. The mothers have to depend upon teachers spotting a child in a class who they think might need clinic treatment. I therefore suggest that one of the most important things for us to consider when this inquiry is set up is the inclusion of the children in the national health insurance system to-day. In fact, the Government are so conscious of the importance of this matter that they have during the last year bridged the gap between the 14-year-old and the 16-year-old children, and they have included them in the national health insurance system. But while we may perhaps say that the children are catered for in some way, the wives, the mothers of the children of the insured workers are absolutely ignored. In fact, the hon. Member for Gorbals said just now that when a woman wanted to get into an approved society when she had attained a certain age—he did not say what the age, was, but I presume it was 50 or 60—it was a most difficult thing for her to find an approved society which would accept her at all.
Let us think for a moment of what provision there is for women in this country. The woman worker, for the first two years after she is married, is included in the National Health Insurance scheme. If she is married at 21 she is insured until she is 23. After 23 she joins what, in my opinion, is the most neglected section of the community so far as health is concerned. I am afraid that the lives of many poor women after that age is an obstetrical steeple-chase. She is no sooner over the hurdle of one confinement than she is facing another. Statisticians tell

us that the expectation of life of women at that period is shorter than that of men, and yet during this most important period of their lives they are denied any form of State health insurance. Can it be wondered at that when we go to our hospitals we find the out-patents' department crowded with these women, who are the end-products of this neglect? Can it be wondered at, as the hon. Member for Gorbals said, that when a woman reaches a certain age no approved society will touch her?
I suggest, therefore, that the scope of this inquiry must be so big that it will particularly inquire into the inclusion of dependants in the National Health Insurance scheme. When we debated the Cancer Bill, I reminded the Minister of Health that it would make no contribution to the reduction of the morbidity and mortality statistics in cancer until the women of the country were included in some National Health Insurance scheme. Only when they have the opportunity of going to a doctor free as their husbands have, so that they can have the first stages of the disease diagnosed in time, will the cancer clinics which it is proposed to set up operate properly. I am sorry the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said that, in his opinion, there was no need to increase the categories included in National Health Insurance. He ignored the category which I am discussing, and said that panel doctors would not welcome them. I disagree entirely. I believe that the medical profession would welcome this new category. I agree that they made a strong protest in 1911, but since then they have realised that National Health Insurance has made a great contribution to the well-being of society. I ask the Government to realise that there will be no opposition from outside to the inclusion of the dependants, and that, therefore, it is in the hands of the Government to remedy a great injustice.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I am sure that the House will wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on the way in which he has used his success in the Ballot, and also upon his most vigorous and yet moderately phrased speech, which embraced all the aspects of our social insurance services. With the spirit of the Motion the Government are agreed. It lays stress on the importance


of our social insurance services to the well-being of the nation, and no one in any quarter of the House would seek to dispute that. These services have been a gulf stream which, although it may not have saved our people in all cases from winter, has, at any rate, saved them from the kind of arctic winter experienced in the territories of some of our neighbours. There was one phrase used by the hon. Member for Aberdare which I would like to take up in this connection. He said that other nations were out-stripping us in social reforms. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has not yet spoken, and I shall be glad to hear from him what nations are out-stripping us in social reforms, because it is our proud boast that this country rivals and outdistances every country in the provision of social services.
The Motion lays stress on the need for further extension of social services, and the Government are fully alive to this need. I shall have something to say later on this subject, but I would remind the House that, in spite of the unprecedented calls upon the Exchequer for rearmament, we are, in fact, spending £50,000,000 a year more on social services than when the Government came into office. Many individual suggestions have been made as to how social services may be extended. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) that his proposals will be taken into consideration. All these matters are constantly under review, and before any King's Speech the Cabinet have to decide between the many conflicting claims and to choose the most urgent subjects for legislation.
I have been challenged, and I respond to it, to state the attitude of the Government in regard to old age pensions. I can only reply that I have nothing to add to the statements that have already been made by Members of the Government on this question or to the Resolution that was passed by the House last November. Hard and moving cases have been put to the House this afternoon, but I would say that, after all, there is public assistance. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen always jeer at public assistance. It was, after all, devised for this very purpose.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case I cited was in the

hands of the Ministry of Health? It was turned down by the public assistance committee and the Ministry say they have not power to deal with it. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it now?

Mr. Bernays: That is a particular case. All I am saying is that it is always open for anyone to apply for public assistance and that we have done a great deal to remove the stigma of the Poor Law. In fact, only 10 per cent. of the pensioners to-day apply for public assistance. I am bound in this connection to mention the factor of cost in social services. While hon. Gentlemen have been speaking I made a note of the cost of some of their proposed reforms. To double old age pensions would cost £74,000,000. The reform mentioned by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) would cost the country £10,000,000. The proposal for pensions for wives at 60 would cost another £4,000,000. I do not want to overstate the cost. I am only saying what they would cost in the first year. One knows that the cost of old age pensions increases as the years go on. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare that it is fitting that this Debate should take place after yesterday's Debate, because we have to consider the colossal bill that we shall have to meet this year for armaments. I admit that in comparison with our armaments figures, the millions that I have just mentioned do not seem so gigantic as they did three years ago. Clearly, however, these reforms cannot be undertaken without substantially increasing taxation, and at this moment he would be a rash man who said it would be good for the country that there should be a further increase in taxation.

Sir F. Fremantle: Surety my hon. Friend would say that far and away the strongest point in his case is that the additional expenditure on social reforms would be a recurring addition, whereas the armaments loan is only a temporary addition to expenditure.

Mr. Bernays: That is just the point to which I was coming. I was going to point out that much of our armaments expenditure is non-recurrent, whereas expenditure on social services, so far from diminishing, as we hope armaments expenditure will, will actually increase. For example, in the cost of old age pensions there will in 40 years be a natural in-


crease of £50,000,000. We have to consider, too, a point which has been mentioned in the Debate, that the number of old people is increasing and the number of young people is decreasing. That is such an important point that I would like to refer to it later in my speech.
In any reform that costs large sums of money, the Government have been compelled to ensure that it will not adversely affect those two vital indirect social insurances which are often forgotten in our Debates, but which really are the foundation of our social services. The first of these is the purchasing power of the pound which must be maintained. The second, and no less important indirect social insurance, is the provision for defence. It is an insurance against war. If that insurance proves insufficient and war comes, then all our social services may perish as if in an earthquake. I sometimes reflect when I see the housing returns that are brought to the Ministry of Health each month that 15 years of housing progress might perish in one week of air raids. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who commented on the fact that the party opposite were in favour of armaments expenditure. It is these considerations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must bear in mind, and which he must have in the forefront of his mind. He would be totally unworthy of his position if he did not give priority to the needs of defence and the financial stability on which the social services depend. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) using a vivid phrase in one of his books, "The World Crisis," on the subject of Jutland and Lord Jellicoe. He said of Lord Jellicoe that he was the one man who could have lost the War in an afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the one man who could lose the social services in a couple of Budget statements.

Mr. Logan: He probably will.

Mr. Bernays: The Chancellor of the Exchequer must also keep in mind that it is the young that keep the old. It is only under the shelter of the young that the aged can end their days in a reasonable standard of comfort. Owing to the high birth rate at the end of the nineteenth century and the low birth rate now and the longer expectation of life, we

are getting more and more old people to be supported, and fewer and fewer young workers to maintain them. I suggest that that is a consideration which must be borne in mind by all hon. Members on whatever side of the House they sit. The power to increase old age pensions depends upon the extent to which we can equip our young men and women for the struggle to maintain and extend Great Britain's power and influence in the markets of the world, and that we contend is being done in the maternity and child welfare services, in the school medical inspections, in the consulting rooms of panel doctors, in the employment exchanges, in the training centres and in the education services.
Four demands are made in the Motion. First, the removal of anomalies and overlapping. Everything that anyone dislikes is always called an anomaly. It is not possible for me to go into each of the so-called anomalies which have been put forward this afternoon, because that would open a vast question, involving a detailed review of the whole machinery of the administration of the insurance schemes, but I should like to take one instance submitted by the hon. Member for Aberdare. He pointed out that the standard rates of benefit are higher under unemployment insurance than under national health insurance, and argued that an insured person needs more when away from work and sick than when he is away from work and well. The answer to that is that the standard rate under national health insurance is increased by way of additional benefits to the great majority of insured persons. The rate he quoted represents the minimum, and only the minimum, for which everybody is called upon compulsorily to insure. It is open to each person to supplement those rates in the light of his own circumstances, and there are greater facilities for supplementing insurance against sickness than against unemployment. We all know and admire the great work of the friendly societies in that direction.
The hon. Member for Gorbals called attention to the differentiation in benefits between one society and another. That is inevitable under the approved society system. If a particular society has heavy sickness experience it has not the money for additional benefits. The only solution would be the pooling of the surpluses, but that would be the end of the approved


society system, and I know from the smile on the face of the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) that that is not a reform which he, who knows so much about the work of the national health insurance system, would be willing to accept.

Mr. Logan: At least it is not agreed to by the national approved societies, but I would be willing for it.

Mr. Bernays: The problem of overlapping was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare, and it is possible to make out a plausible case for the institution of a single stamp for all these insurance services, but that could only be done if there were a single administration, and the reason we do not have that is that the main objectives in unemployment insurance and in national health insurance are quite different. In health insurance the objective is to keep people well, and in unemployment insurance it is to equip people for work, and the material for each of those schemes must be in the hands of the Department which has to judge them. The position was inquired into by a special survey committee which was set up by the Labour party. I conclude that it was found that the reform suggested could not be carried out.
Now I come to the problem of co-ordination, to which such importance was attached by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). He advocated co-ordination by a statutory committee on the lines of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. It is an interesting proposal, and I think it has appeared in one of the P.E.P. publications. The difficulty is that such a statutory committee could not deal with policy. None of these statutory committees deals with policy. An attempt to do so was made in the case of the Quota Imports Committee under the Marketing Act, but making decisions upon quotas has been found to be too important a matter for any ad hoc outside committee, and they are now the responsibility of the Government. Again, when the Unemployment Assistance Board was set up the original idea was to take unemployment assistance out of politics, but the House would not allow it, insisting that it was far too important a question to be withdrawn from the purview of the House of Commons.
In the direction of co-ordination the hon. Member for Aberdare suggested the

establishment of a Minister for Social Services. I understood that he had in mind a co-ordinating Minister on the lines of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I do not think that such a Ministry would really help us. The case for the co-ordination of the Defence Ministries rests on the need for establishing priority in the placing of contracts. There is no similar problem in the social services. The difference between the Defence Services and the social services is the difference between peace and war. The essence of armament is the maintenance of secrecy. If there is a question of priority as between one Department and another, it cannot be settled upon the Floor of the House, and there must be some overriding authority, but such considerations do not operate in the case of the social services. We can debate them here, in the good, democratic way, with complete freedom and complete publicity. I suggest that it is the House of Commons that is the real co-ordinating committee and see no reason why it should abrogate its functions to any outside body. There are many opportunities for reviewing and co-ordinating administration. There is the Debate on the Address, there are the Adjournment Debates, and there is the Motion for the Adjournment every night. Surely the best co-ordination is done by the Legislature, and not by the executive.
As regards an inquiry, for which a strong plea has been made, the Government does not shut its mind to the possibility of an inquiry, but I am bound to say that I do not think that to-night a case has been made out for such an inquiry. Admittedly there has been no Royal Commission on the subject for 30 years, but there have been constant inquiries into this or that aspect of administration, running audits of administration, a continuous process. Moreover, I think we can claim that there is no evidence of exhaustion of thought about future legislation. The time to dig round the roots of a tree is when the tree shows signs of withering, and there is no danger of this tree showing signs of withering. The tree of social reform is not merely in good earth, but it is continuously pushing forth new branches, and more and more of our people are being brought within its shelter. New classes of people have in recent years been brought under the umbrella.
There was the extension of health insurance to juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16. We did not need any inquiry for that; we just went and did it; and now 1,000,000 boys and girls are having medical attendance and medical supervision between the ages of 14 and 16, the gap which used to exist at those critical years having been filled up. We did not need an inquiry when we established the voluntary system of pensions for black-coated workers. More than 750,000 have applied for admission and 300,000 have already been admitted. That system has involved a very substantial gift from the State. No man pays more than Is. 3d. a week, yet the benefits for a man of 24 are equivalent to what he would get for a payment of 2s. 6d. a week, and for a man of 54 they are as though he had paid 15s. 1d. I think we can claim that that was a very substantial gift from the State to a hard-pressed section of the community.
There have also been other remedial Measures which in the short time that I have been Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health I have had the honour of assisting—the Midwives Bill, the Blind Persons Bill and now the Cancer Bill. An improvement in social insurance is going on at this moment. By improvements in finance, by the improvement in the health of the nation and by the stability of trade, the surpluses in the National Health Insurance Fund are increasing and out of them come increasing benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin spoke of dental benefits, and I certainly agree with him as to their importance. He will be glad to know that two-thirds of the whole insured population now have an opportunity of receiving dental treatment. The Unemployment Insurance Fund is constantly providing more benefits. In 1935 an extra Is. was given for children, and contributions were reduced. In 1936 the waiting period was reduced and the period of benefit extended. In 1937 the waiting period was again reduced and the period of benefit again extended.
We have no substantial quarrel with this Motion, because we are doing what the Motion invites us to do, that is, we are not merely maintaining but we are extending our social services. The Government are as anxious as any Member of the House that that policy should be

continued. All that we object to is the suggestion that there is need for more committees or for a full-dress inquiry. The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) made a very pregnant observation during the Committee stage of the Cancer Bill when he said:
In addition to medical cancer there is such a thing as administrative cancer, and one of the best ways in which to bring about administrative cancer is to complicate the procedure by setting up a whole host of committees before you start to do the job of work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1939; col. 1412, Vol. 343.]
We are doing the job of work without a host of committees and inquiries. Where it can be avoided we do not wish to see progress held up in a maze of committees and inquiries. We want to get on with the job, and we contend that our record in legislation and administration is a proof that we are getting on with the job.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I want to say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) chose this subject for debate this afternoon. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that perhaps it would have been better if we had had more time to discuss this Motion, because it covers five or six of the most important things affecting the workers and their dependants, and it is not our fault that these subjects are not discussed more than they are. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would like to hear from me some proof of the statement made by the hon. Member for Aberdare that other countries were leaving us behind in certain social reforms. I shall be very pleased to give the hon. Gentleman some information. And when he says that we boast of our social services, it is quite true that we do, but sometimes we show in our boasting that we have forgotten a little of the history of the last 40 or 50 years. When we begin to examine that history and the social reforms that have come into operation since the War, while we may be proud of what has been done there is still a lot more that needs doing.
I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Hitchin(Sir A. Wilson) is in his place. Like most people in this House, I have a good deal of regard for him in his research work. I have read some of his books, and I have read them with


interest, but I am bound to say that if he is not extremely careful he is going to sink in the estimation of some of us, because he seems now to be the one Member who is prepared to stand up whenever there is a Motion for the immediate improvement of a social service, in order to show reasons why it should either be delayed or not legislated upon at all. Two weeks ago he had on the Paper an Amendment directed against any action on workmen's compensation until such time as the Royal Commission reported. Nevertheless he made out the best case for immediate action that I have heard for a long while, and as he happens to be interested, and the Parliamentary Secretary is interested, in the history of social reform in this country, perhaps it may not be out of place to remind him that about the first piece of social reform that this House passed affecting the individual worker was the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897—a gigantic step forward from the then existing state of things, but one of the most inadequate pieces of legislation that I can remember. The most that could be paid to a man totally incapacitated was £1 a week. The most that could be paid to the widow and dependants of a man killed at work was either three years' earnings or £300. Before a man totally incapacitated could get a week's compensation he had to be out of work three weeks. When this injury was done to my arm—and that arm will never go straight—I was buried in the pit at about 18 years of age, unconscious from the early morning, and I had to be off work for three weeks before I drew the first week's compensation. You were expected to carry two weeks wages in your pocket in those days.
That was the first workmen's compensation legislation in this country. At that time hon. Members on the other side of the House predicted ruin for every friendly society in the country, for every coal mine in the country, and for industry generally. Then we had the Old Age Pensions Act in 1908–5s. at 70. Hon. Members in the Conservative party in this House predicted that that 5s. at 70 would destroy thrift and demoralise the people. We have heard from the hon. Member for Hitchin to-day some new Conservative principles outlined by Lord Baldwin. I am very pleased to know that the Conservative party have far better principles to-day than they had 20

or 30 years ago. Because let me remind them that when the first Bill was before this House dealing with health matters, namely, the National Insurance Bill of 1911—famous for the 9d. for 4d. agitation—134 Conservative Members voted against it. The late Mr. Bonar Law wrote to the "Times" saying that if his party came into power he would repeal it. Is there a Conservative supporting the Government who can deny that statement? That was in 1911.
Let us look at that Act, because it bears on the Motion. That Act is not national in character, and it was not national in character in 1911. The only national feature about it was that the State undertook to collect contributions from the two parties and from itself. There were hon. Members in the House at that time who saw that anomalies and inequalities were bound to arise under that Act. I am one who, fortunately, has enjoyed good health for half a century, one who believes that health is the greatest wealth. A nation should be as healthy as it possibly can be, and we must be very much perturbed by the state of the nation's health to-day. We have to-day approved societies of which 70 per cent. of the members are entitled to cash additional benefits, 88 per cent. to some form of additional benefit, and 12 per cent., or more than 2,000,000, not entitled to any additional benefit at all. If hon. Members care to consult the report of the Government Actuary issued last year they will find that the exact number of those not entitled to additional benefits is 2,219,525.
It is interesting to know just where those people reside. The deficiency tables show that Durham and Northumberland had a deficiency of £146,000; the Durham miners, £56,000; the Amalgamated Weavers, £84,000; the West Riding, £13,000; Lancashire and Cheshire, £11,000; the Scottish miners, £16,000; and South Wales is in a similar position. These are all people in the heavy industries, in areas where there has been unemployment and where sickness rates are high. What does it mean? It means that there are two and a quarter million people who are having no assistance at all so far as treatment of the eyes, the ears in some cases, and the teeth are concerned. I think the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who has


has long experience in the medical profession, will agree with me that attention to the teeth is vital if you wish to preserve good health. Indeed, I am told by those who are supposed to know, that decayed teeth are a direct cause of rheumatism, and rheumatism causes hundreds of thousands of people in this country to lose work in the course of a year. Did hon. Members to-day hear the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he told the House that last year more than 25,000 out of 60,000 young men were rejected as recruits for the Navy—45 per cent. of them owing to eye trouble, 15 per cent, owing to bad teeth, and 7½ per cent, owing to bad hearing. Twenty-five thousand young men. largely from the districts where there are no additional benefits, are so physically unfit that they cannot find a place in His Majesty's Navy. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might pay some attention to that.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about Royal Commissions he forgets that in 1936 there was a Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, which made certain recommendations dealing with anomalies that have been discussed today. Will the Parliamentary Secretary either now or at some other time tell the House and the country the reason why those recommendations were not put into operation? They recommended the pooling of partial surpluses, and estimated that it would cost just more than £2,000,000. Is the Parliamentary Secretary so devoid of knowledge of history that he forgets that the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, raided the approved societies to the extent of more than £2,000,000, and that £2,000,000, or even less, would put these two and a quarter million people who are in National Health Insurance on the same terms almost as the people in approved societies who can get these benefits? When the hon. Gentleman talks about anomalies may I mention that we had an influenza epidemic in Yorkshire? In one house that I know there were three people down with influenza, all members of different approved societies. They all paid the same contributions, but only one out of the three was able to get some additional benefit. Why cannot we get from the Government some small grant to

give these people the additional benefit to provide the treatment they so urgently need?
When we come to the question of our medical services, what do we find? This medical service is purely a general practitioners' service. You have the panel doctor for the insured person only, and he is purely a general practitioner. As was stated by the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, that means that the medical service given in respect of the insurance contribution stops short just where the need is greatest. Our aim as a nation should be to have a kind of throughput treatment in regard to disease, from the general practitioner to the specialist if need be, and hospital treatment if need be. That cannot be got today. There are some approved societies who provide specialist treatment, but there are some who do not, and many men to-day have to go without specialist treatment because they just cannot afford it. The Royal Commission recommended that expert medical advice and treatment should be provided for patients who can travel to the specialist, but what is the use of telling the country that there has been a Royal Commission and another is not necessary when you have had Royal Commissions by the score whose recommendations have not been carried out? The Royal Commission also made recommendations with regard to the provision of expert advice for those unable to travel and with regard to voluntary services.
If we are to study the whole question of health, we have a lot of things to do. It is a good investment. As regards co-ordination, we ought to bring the whole of the health services under the administration of one department. To-day we have the school medical service under the Board of Education, and we have certain other sickness regulations under the Home Office. If all these things were co-ordinated under one department, that would enable the problem to be focused in its right perspective. We have made a good deal of progress in the last 30 years, but in a kind of haphazard, higgledy-piggledy way, without any coherence. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that Governments have done very little by way of social reform until they have been compelled to do it by public opinion outside. They have never done it because it was right to do it; usually they have


done it because they have been compelled to do it. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Sumerskill) spoke about dependants' benefit, and that also was included in the Royal Commission's recommendations. Why cannot we devise a scheme whereby the wife and children of the insured worker will have some kind of medical attention? How many women are there in this country who are struggling to give the kiddies the best possible chance, and who need medical attention, but cannot get it because they cannot afford to pay for it? Again, when we are talking about health statistics, let us not forget that we are still losing thousands upon thousands of people in this country from the common cold, or what results from the common cold. In this problem of National Health Insurance we need, not only co-ordination, not only inquiry as to future possibilities, but some action now by the Government, because the problem is urgent and immediate.
Let us look at the question of pensions. A man, when he reaches the age of 65 is entitled to 10s. a week, but his wife does not get it until she too is 65. Then they get £1 a week. In the first place, the amount is too low. It puts on the local authorities a burden which they ought not to be asked to carry. There are many anomalies in the pension schemes, and in my opinion, despite the fact that we have to find £800,000,000 this year for armaments, we could find the money for a workable and adequate pension scheme if we had the will to do so. There is an economic side of the pensions problem as well as a human side. To-day we have, in England alone, 330,000 people at work in insurable occupations who are more than 65 years of age. We have also 2,000,000 out of work. I know that many of those men of 65 and over who are in industry would be quite willing to retire from industry if they knew that for 52 weeks in the year, as long as they lived, the 35s. a week would be there- They would make way for younger men to get into industry. Further, I wonder how many men over 65 there are in insurable occupations who have had their wages reduced by 10s. a week. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hitchin, who is so thorough in his researches, might inquire into the number of exemptions in the agricultural industry, and find out how many of these men, because they have turned 65, have had 10s. knocked off their wages. It means that in those cases

we are subsidising wages to the extent of 10s. a week.
Both the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare wanted me to touch upon what is being done in other countries. As many people know, I had the pleasure of discussing very thoroughly in the Dominions, not only the question of social legislation, but other matters as well, and I also had the pleasure, with other Members of the House, of making a six weeks inquiry as to how social reform is dealt with in Russia. I have no time now to arouse the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but there is time for me to deal with Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, old age pensions are a matter for the Commonwealth, and not for the individual States. A non-contributory pension of £1 per week is paid to a man at 65, and to his wife at 60, making £2 a week together. They also have a workmen's compensation scheme that makes ours look like a Woolworths one. In New South Wales, the maximum amount that can be paid as compensation for total incapacity is £5 a week or full wages. I discussed in Sydney with some good Imperialists questions of social reform, and they were amazed that the Old Country had such a poor, miserable compensation scheme; they could not believe that 30s. a week was the maximum. In New Zealand, where there is a Labour Government, which happens to have the support of even fanners, workmen's compensation is £2 a week minimum, and £4 maximum. New Zealand has an old age pension scheme under which the man at 65 and his wife at 60 receive 22s. 6d. a week each, or a total of 45s. Of course, it cannot be done here; so we are told by employers.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is there not a means test before a man or woman gets that amount?

Mr. Smith: Certainly, but it is fairly high, and it allows those with no resources to draw 45s. a week. These social services, therefore, are much better than ours. Is 10s. a week at 65 all the reward that these industrial veterans are to get from the country? Who are they? They are men who have spent the whole of their working lives in industry. Many of them are industrial derelicts—monuments to the capitalist system. A few years ago, in 1914–18, they were thought a lot of. They were younger than they


are to-day. Many of them were good colliers, as the hon, Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will admit. If we got down to it, we could certainly find ways and means of putting these pensions on something like an adequate level. Every time that social legislation has been brought into this House to give something to the workers, someone has used the age-long argument, "We would like to do it, but we are sorry that industry cannot afford it." Historians know that 100 years ago there was a Royal Commission with regard to young women and children working in the pits, and the selfsame argument was used then in this House and in another place. It meant ruin every time anything was brought before this House with the object of social betterment. It is rather remarkable that the increased activity of governments in bringing in social legislation coincided with these people having the vote. In pre-war days, when they had not the vote, they got nothing. To-day they have the vote, and I hope they are going to get something, because they certainly deserve it, and it is the job of the House of Commons to deal with this urgent need. I hope that this Motion will be carried by general good will, and that the Government will take it as an instruction, without waiting for Royal Commissions, to get down to the job of removing these anomalies, bringing in these improvements, and giving to the people affected a little more justice than they are getting at the present time.

7.28 p.m.

Sir F. Fremantle: Perhaps I may be allowed, in the two minutes that remain, to say a final word from the point of view of one who has been concerned with the public health side of this problem and with public welfare for many years. There is agreement on every side as to the general requirements and desires which have been put forward to-day, but the idea that it is merely a question of spending money is grossly fallacious. We medical people know the danger of suggesting that these things can be done merely by spending money. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), as well as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), made that mistake, which is common among hon. Members opposite. They are always emphasising the idea that these things would be done if you would only spend the money. We, however, know that the thing to do is to bring public opinion along to help themselves, together with such money as is required for the purpose. That is the real difference between us. You cannot bring in any new scheme of reform; you must improve matters by natural growth, and we are growing. In the belief that we do not need any further inquiry, I support the Amendment as the right thing to follow with a view to progress.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 172.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstape)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hayday, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Denville, Alfred
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Adamson, W. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hepworth, J. 


Ammon, C. G.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hicks, E. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hollins, A.


Attles, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Hopkin, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Barr, J.
Foot, D. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Bellenger, F. J.
Frankel, D.
John, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gallacher, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Benson, G.
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Broad, F. A.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Bromfield, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Kirby, B. V.


Buchanan, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Kirkwood, D.


Burke, W. A,
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lathan, G.


Cape, T.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lawson, J. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Leach, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Leonard, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Leslie, J. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Groves, T. E.
Lipson, D. L.


Collindridge, F.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Logan, D. G.


Daggar, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lunn, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hardie, Agnes
Macdonald, G. (Inee)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Harris, Sir P. A.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Day, H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
McEntee, V. La T.




McGhee, H. G.
Parkinson, J. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Maclean, N.
Pearson, A.
Thorne, W.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Thurtle, E.


MacNeill Weir, L.
Poole, C. C.
Tinker, J. J.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Mander, G. le M.
Pritt, D. N.
Walkden, A. G.


Markham, S. F.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walker, J.


Marklew, E.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Marshall, F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Watson, W. MsL.


Mathers, G.
Sanders, W. S.
Walsh, J. C.


Maxton, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Westwood, J.


Messer, F.
Sexton, T. M.
White, H. Graham


Milner, Major J.
Shinwell, E.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Montague, F.
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Simpson, F. B.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Haskney, S.)
Smith, Ban (Rotherhithe)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Muff, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stephen, C.



Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stokes, R. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Mr. George Hall and Mr. T. Smith.


Paling, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Pilkington, R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gridlay, Sir A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Balniel, Lord
Hambro, A. V.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Boulton, W. W.
Hogg, Hon. Q. MoG.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hopkinson, A.
Sandys, E. D.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Scott, Lord William


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Bull, B. B.
Hunloke, H. P.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hunter, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
James, Wing-Commander A, W. H.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Southby, Commander Sir A, R. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Spans. W. P.


Channon, H. 
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) 
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Christie, J. A.
Kimball, L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Lees-Jones, J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Liddall, W. S.
Toucha, G. C.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Train, Sir J.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lloyd, G. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Turton, R. H.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Cross, R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Crossley, A. C.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Culverwell, C. T.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Davidson, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Medilcott, F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


De Chair, S. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Windser-clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Do la Bère, R.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Donner, P. W.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wise, A. R.


Drewe, C.
Moreing, A. C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wragg, H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ellis, Sir G.
Munro, P.



Emery, J. F.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sir Arnold Wilson and Sir Stanley Reed.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Palmer, G. E. H.



Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Peake, O.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Major Sir George Davies: Major Sir George Davies rose——

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move,
That, whilst recognising the value of the efforts of the Government to stimulate industry and find employment, this House is of opinion that there is urgent necessity for an immediate development of practical and constructive proposals towards the co-ordination of man-power and industrial policy in order to assist in the proper distribution of employment and to ensure employment to able-bodied unemployed workers.
The Debate of last week confirmed, if any confirmation were necessary, the opinion that the problem of the unemployed, particularly at a time when so much national work is being done, was a matter of great concern to all sections of the House. I feel that the Debate last week did some good. Many admirable speeches were made, and many constructive proposals put forward. But in bringing this Motion forward to-night, I hope the House will not regard the time as wasted, but will look upon it more as an indication of persistence in dealing with a question which is itself persistent. If we can commence at the point where we left off last time, we may make some progress. I am of opinion that a complete remedy for unemployment cannot be found by the adoption of any of the many schemes which were referred to by Members last week. It can be found only by tackling the root cause of our loss, of trade, and by a far more comprehensive outlook, examination of our industrial position and co-ordination of all the forces, industry, agriculture and finance, which go to make up our national economic strength. May I say, as regards the Amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), that any of the suggestions which I shall make are subject to the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observation of trade union rates and conditions. I do not propose to cover quite the same angle as was touched upon previously, but to try to open up an avenue which might afford an opportunity for constructive suggestions for the solution of this problem,

which I believe is the concern of every Member of this House, irrespective of his political opinion.
Most people will have been impressed by the speech of the Minister of Labour last week, in which he set out in some detail the efforts which the Government had made and were still making to maintain and stimulate industry at such a level as would keep most of our men employed. No one, on this side at least, would be little those efforts, because without them it is apparent that the number of men unemployed would be considerably greater than it is. I agree that to speak of 2,000,000 unemployed does not give a fair picture of the situation. There always has been, and always will be under the present insurance system, a large, fluctuating number of men and women passing from work to work who merely register for unemployment benefit. It is the other case, of people who have been out of work for six months or more, with which we are primarily concerned. It is this number which should tax our minds in the effort to discover first the cause of industry's inability to absorb that man-power.
Most of us will agree that the only place for the workless in this country is in the ranks of industry, and that industry should function to its fullest degree, with as little assistance as possible from the Government in the way of subsidies, because it is only in proportion as industry so operates that we can calculate the progress of our national wealth. If it were possible to state exactly the number of men and women employed on schemes directly financed by the Government, such as those in the Special Areas and in industries financed by subsidies, and the number employed through the acceleration of the rearmament programme, we should have the true perspective of the surplus of man-power to industry's requirements. That position would reveal the extent of our loss as a productive nation. I do not think that I should be wrong if I estimated the figure at 3,000,000. In addition, it must not be forgotten that there is another army of over 100,000 men who arc on the public assistance list, not being regarded as right to be included in the Ministry of Labour figures because they are not within the scope of the Unemployment Act. We must not forget, also, that there is another great block of black-coated


workers who are on neither of the lists, but are always oscillating between independence and charity, with a heroism which is none the less real because it is secret.
Therefore, the problem assumes its correct gigantic proportions when we take away the props which have been generously provided by the Government, a position which reveals the fact that our normal industrial requirements are capable of absorbing only something like 75 per cent. of our man-power, leaving a balance which must be the responsibility of the Government and which is being dealt with at the present time through a system of insurance benefit or by stimulating in various ways industries in certain areas. It is, however, the fact that this responsibility has not been tackled in a way that many of us think it ought to have been tackled by the Government, that is giving great cause of uneasiness on these benches, whose concern it is to maintain and strengthen the social system in which we live. In the present unhappy position it would be fatuous to deny that our present system reveals imperfections and weaknesses which must be remedied if the structure is not to crack or collapse under the strain, and if democracy is to maintain itself against its challengers.
I am not prepared to admit that we of this generation are incapable of solving this problem. It is a problem only as long as we allow it to remain so without facing it. I am confident that it can be removed, and by measures which will not involve any departure from the principles of democracy, but which would rather strengthen its ideals and realisations. What, then, should be our first step in this direction? As I have said, there can be no spectacular cure, such as putting the workers on to road-making, land drainage, and so on. On the contrary, while such schemes may have their place in the general plan, we must build an organisation stage by stage which will have some permanence in our system. First, it is necessary to strengthen and fortify the productive structure by all the force in our power, and enable it to absorb considerably more than the 75 per cent. which it is doing at the present time.
It is a truism that prophecy is dangerous, but surely it is not recklessness which in the face of these facts prompts

us to try to visualise and try to meet the exigencies of the future. If we take such a survey of the world situation to-day, what can we say is likely to happen within the bounds of reason? Peace, first of all, is admittedly the greatest blessing to mankind, and it is universally hoped that the persistence of the Government in seeking and fostering peace will be successful. Obviously, without peace the whole basis of our life, social, economic and political, is missing. Even if peace be only threatened, as we have seen, there is destroyed that confidence which is essential to the progress of industry and world trade. I believe we are in for a long period of peace, but I am not so optimistic in regard to the economic world. Signs are not wanting; in fact they are very much in evidence to-day, that events are shaping themselves which may make the world ring with the violence and strife of economic war.
The German Leader has said that Germany must export or die, and Germany and other nations are proving that by their actions. The same dictum applies to this country. It is not practical economics for any nation to go on selling abroad and never buying. Efforts to create a favourable balance of trade in one country must correspondingly produce an unfavourable balance in others. Those countries which are trying by heavily subsidising the manufacture of their goods are realising that, and that if it is persisted in, it must bring the fatal retaliation which in turn must have the effect of lowering the standard of living in all countries. With this realisation there must come the demand for a conference. While we hope that agreements may limit the strife I feel that we as a nation must organise to meet the intensification of the struggle to secure world trade in the next few years.
Compared with other nations, we are very strong in resources, particularly in finance, but finance is not the only factor in the struggle that is coming. In the organisation of man-power for the purposes of productive industry, and even for national necessities, we are a long way behind other countries, who will be our biggest competitors. Therefore, our first effort must be to prevent the wastage of man-power which is now taking place, and we must so organise that in combina-


tion with further rationalisation and reorganisation of some industries, particularly agriculture, we may be able to present a formidable front. The task, however, must be attempted on far more ambitious, energetic and stronger lines than ever before, finding a wider field for experiment and initiative and creating and using for the purpose of strengthening not only our industrial structure but the moral and physical well-being of the nation. The Government must play a leading part in this rejuvenation, and there is an equal responsibility resting upon the industrialists, and even upon the workers.
I do not want to be pessimistic. On the contrary, I have every faith in the ability of my own countrymen to meet successfully the challenge that is coming, but it means taking our coats off, and I mean that literally so far as the unemployed are concerned. It may even call for the adoption of many unorthodox methods by the Government in dealing with some industries and in the creation of others. Orthodoxy has been on trial for a long time, and it would be disastrous, owing to the character of the nations opposing us, if we were to allow our future policy to be determined by the needs of the less worthy or by the slowness of the lame.
One notes with some interest that steps are being taken in the directions I have indicated, and recently there appears to have been an awakening by our industrialists to the fact, as never before, that they are on trial against the new technique of the totalitarian countries. The Federation of British Industries are to consult with their German colleagues on international trade, and one welcomes a visit of the President of the Board of Trade to Germany for the purpose of trade talks. One also welcomes the opening up of negotiations with Russia for the same object. Such conferences will undoubtedly do some good. In another direction I observe that our Export Credits Guarantee Department are favouring the granting of loans or credits linked to exports, a procedure which is bound to be helpful, particularly if with it an organisationis created for the selling of the products of the borrowing country in the markets of the world.
It is in these directions and many others familiar to the House, that hope

lies in revising trade agreements, too, certain countries should definitely be told that in proportion as they buy from us will they be allowed to sell to us. In the opinion of many, much could be done by a re-examination of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. Our traders must also recognise the fact that some export markets have been lost and will never be regained, and that in some industries and enterprises we should be able to expand our output of many specialised goods. Take, for instance, the low level of motor car exports for a long time. The position is absurd, especially when we consider our skill in construction and our advantageous opportunities in the Empire markets. There are many other commodities where the high quality of British workmanship would sell them abroad. In our exports of electrical goods, one of the most rapidly growing trades, we are well behind other countries. We are also behind in general engineering, the chemical industry and others.
In spite of the trading methods of some countries in trying to wrest trade from us, much can be done by the industrialists to improve our position, and by enterprise in opening up new markets. In the home markets, too, there is great need for stimulating an industrial policy which to be effective must possess the essential elements of co-ordination. Sectional interests are rampant. Industries are working in separate compartments, without any great regard for one another. The manufacturer and the farmer, for example, very rarely, if ever, meet in conference. We need a policy that will reorientate itself to the home market, a policy that will carry the good will and interest of the industry in our immediate efforts to make all the necessary adjustments, and one that will regard as an essential and vital element in all its calculations the human side of the industrial problem, with its constantly increasing numbers of unemployed. That policy should pay special regard to the character and quantities of our imports, and should concentrate on the effort to check any undue increase. Agriculture looms largely in this respect, and we know that unemployment is not divorced from agriculture. I suggest that it is only when we feel satisfied that the industries have done everything they can in the markets of the world and in the home market that


the balance of unemployed labour should become the responsibility of the Government. When one reflects on the figures of our constantly declining exports and our constantly growing imports how can one be satisfied that industry is doing all that it can?
One objection to this proposal may be that ii such a reorganisation of industry were carried out we should still have the unemployed with us. I am prepared to admit that, but I suggest that the number would be nothing like it is at the present time. It is with that rest that I consider the Government should deal, upon far more organised, systematised and human lines than is the case at the present time, and on lines which will ensure work at wages instead of either public assistance or unemployment benefit. Sir George Gillett, Commissioner for the Special Areas of England and Wales, has drawn attention to the valuable services which district commissioners have rendered to local authorities. He says that while there was close contact with the areas they were able to co-ordinate the work of economic and social development much better than they would have been able to do bad they left the local authorities to approach the Government along orthodox channels.
I think that it is necessary that the whole country, and not the black spots only, be covered with this system of district commissions. It should be divided into areas, with selected men in control even with plenary powers if necessary, and it should have sub-divisions into regional districts in close contact with the Ministry of Labour, industrialists, local authorities and trade unions. The commissions would be able to survey the industrial prospects of each district and the position and types of labour available. They would also have a knowledge of the local schemes of work which were necessary. Such schemes might be those with which local authorities were not able to proceed normally, owing to capital cost, or be of an urgent character such as building air-raid precaution shelters and other defence necessities. The commissioners would extend the trading centres to cover all areas, and would introduce more instructional centres. Greater effect would also be secured in the juvenile centres if they were controlled by commissioners in conjunction with the local authorities. The whole

field of labour, juvenile, middle-aged, and of the older types, would come under this review. The commissioners would have powers to deal with the local situation, and surplus labour between the ages of 18 and 30 years which had been unemployed for six months or over would be put to work on local schemes.
I will not weary the House by going into the details of the schemes of work which offer themselves in every town in the country, but housing, land drainage, roads and many others have their worth and no one denies the necessity for them. Most of those activities we expect to be taken by normal industry. To attempt to accelerate them now would not only have a reaction but, I am afraid, would not even be considered as a cure in themselves for the unemployment position today. It is often overlooked that in many of the national schemes of work skilled and semi-skilled labour is necessary to a fairly high degree, and as those types of labour do not represent our trouble it is impossible to absorb unskilled labour on these schemes beyond the limit of skilled labour available. Consideration of these larger schemes of work must not be ruled out, but I would prefer that it took its proper place in the larger survey of the prospective work to be undertaken in conjunction with the general trend of industry over the next few years, to which matter I referred earlier.
By the contacts they would be able to create the commissioners should be able to form reliable forecasts of the activities and the output of the main industries. They would be able to say what industries were likely to progress and what were likely to dwindle and, in the latter case, they should have the power to regulate the new workers. They must be placed in the position of distributing employment between areas in a way that would cause as little hardship as possible to both sides, and they should have power also to allocate new industries to places where labour was available—or at least to make satisfactory arrangements for the transfer of the labour to the factories. Younger men must be trained and drafted into the more modern and progressive industries such as motor, civil electrical and aviation engineering. [An Hon. Member: "And mining."] I suggest that with such a field of opportunity we ought never to allow young men under the age of 30 years to be a charge on public funds.
At the end of the scale we should probably have a number of unemployed. I have already suggested that the commissioners should have power to put men between the ages of 18 and 31 years upon local schemes of work after the men's insurance benefits had been exhausted. They could etxend their work to other age categories, as other local schemes came forward and as finances were better.
There is hardly any limit to that class of work, if our towns are to be made healthier, happier and brighter than they are to-day. I know that the Government are doing a great deal at the present time in this respect. I feel that they are doing too much, so far as they are accepting a load which could be eased by the industrial structure if all essential factors were brought into harmony. I feel confident that if our industries were to get down to this job, the expenditure on the nation's surplus labour would not throw too heavy a burden upon the common finances of the country.
It may be thought that all I have said is in the academic strain and that any possibility of so increasing employment as to absorb the larger part of the unemployed through industrial channels, is purely idealistic; all I can say is that I have at least given my opinion and that it is my effort to face a situation which cannot be allowed to continue. It may be said also that any scheme for the reorganisation of industry may lead to further displacement of labour, but if that happened it would, I am convinced, be only temporary and until the new technique of economic planning could apply itself to the fresh setting which would be created. The fact that wages have increased in the last five years by almost £100,000,000 a year is due to the great extent of the rationalisations which have already taken place and is proof that if more were done in that direction the result would be good.
I am conscious that the suggestions I have made may be said to touch only the fringe of the forces which would be involved in such a national rejuvenation. For instance, I have not dealt at all with the need for a policy of cheap and abundant money or with the necessity of a monetary policy which would stabilise the purchasing of money. Both of them are vital factors in the co-ordination of

our national forces, but time does not permit me to go into detail on those aspects. Unemployment is admittedly a disease of our social system and we can effectively deal with it only by treating the whole body, economic and politic, and not by any method of palliatives or soothing syrup. I am confident that a cure can be effected. That cure may be unpalatable to certain interests, but, failing its application, we stand to be judged as failures in the art of good government.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Jones: I beg to second the Motion.
May I at the same time express our thanks to my hon. Friend for giving us another opportunity of discussing the question of unemployment, after the Debate we had last week. This Motion is likely to give rise to concrete suggestions—I will not say to cure but at any rate to alleviate unemployment, and it makes the discussion somewhat different from that of last week. Last week's Debate served a most excellent purpose in bringing to light certain reasons for the high rate of unemployment to-day and enabling Ministers to state what the Government's long-term policy was and their method of carrying it out, but it must be appreciated that this programme will take a long time to bring any results.
We ought to turn our minds to steps which we can take immediately and which will come into operation and show results in a much smaller space of time, especially with regard to those men who have been unemployed for six months and over, and who are the chief people to whom my hon. Friend referred in his speech. Experience has taught us that there are certain industries where there is little or no unemployment and that there are those in which the degree of unemployment varies from a low figure to a high figure. It is the people who are unemployed in the latter class of industry to whom we ought to pay our particular attention. I do not refer to palliatives such as road-making, and anticipating work which we know will be done by local authorities at some time, because they are largely blind-alley occupations. Not every man who is thrown out of work is strong enough to do road work. I consider that our only hope is in training young fellows, some of whom have


not had an opportunity of working since they left school, and others who have been thrown out of work.
In the "Situations vacant" columns of our newspapers you will find numerous occupations for which hands are required, and it seems curious that we should have 2,000,000 people drawing out-of-work pay who are unable to turn their hands to the various jobs which they see in those daily papers. It occurs to me, therefore, that a lot of these young people ought to have an opportunity of being trained. It will cost a lot of money, but in spite of armaments and one thing and another, I do not consider that that fact ought to prevent us from spending it, and for these reasons. The taxpayer is complaining bitterly because he is spending a lot of money every year in providing out-of-work pay for many hundreds of thousands of unemployed. If training centres were opened, although they would cost a good deal of money the taxpayer would be getting a better return for it. More important still is the effect that it would have on the mind of the unemployed man. He feels it derogatory—and I quite appreciate his feelings—in having to queue up week after week for out-of-work pay. He is bound to some extent to lose his self-respect, but in being in a position to get a good job his self-respect would come back, and he would become physically fit. He feels—and I have spoken to many unemployed men—that he has no place in society at the moment. If he were given the opportunity of a job or of getting back to work, even if it was only to do some training for a job, he would feel that he was part and parcel of things in general.
Training centres are all right as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. Very many more are needed, and all areas in the Kingdom should be covered. I cannot see why an area which has, say, 1,000 unemployed men, should have any preference over an area which has, say, only 100 unemployed men. The 100 men have as much right to work and live as the 1,000 men, and if we are to place training centres in the areas where these 1,000 men are, why not provide training centres in places where the 100 men are? We should be overcoming a tremendous difficulty by doing so, in that the men themselves would not have far to go to their training. They would be

able to live at home among their own people.
I agree with my hon. Friend that more commissioners ought to be appointed. I appreciate that some of my views may seem revolutionary. Whether they are revolutionary or not, does not worry me in the slightest. All that I am thinking about is the welfare of the great proportion of these 2,000,000 people who are out of work and who ought to have work. There ought to be at least one commissioner appointed for each county who, in his turn, might have regional assistant commissioners, and who, in their turn, might have the assistance in various areas of that region of representative industrialists and trade unions as well. The training centres could, I believe, very quickly turn out semi-skilled men from the unskilled material entering these centres. I would stop unemployment relief entirely while the men were in the training centres and pay them instead a wage which would be agreed upon between the commissioner, the industrialists and the trade union representatives.
There are other methods, too numerous to mention, of finding useful work for these men, and among these I might mention the agricultural industry. I know from my own investigation that many farmers cannot put their farms to their full use, not that they have any fear of not being able to sell their produce, but because they cannot afford to pay the wages fixed under the Act which provides for minimum wages. I do not see why the farmers should not have their wages bill subsidised. I am aware, again, that that is in direct opposition to many of the things which I have been taught, and I appreciate that there may be other people who will say, "Why pick out farming? Why not turn to other industries?" Turn to as many industries as you will, if you can find men jobs, but I have mentioned agriculture purposely because it is one of the basic industries of this country. Everybody is shouting for more production at home and reduced imports of foodstuffs. There, I think, is an opportunity for utilising the farms to the fullest extent and of expanding the subsidising of wages to other industries if so desired.
I have been asked what I would do with the unskilled men. How would I find work for them? I consider seriously that the ranks of the unemployed might be


permanently lightened considerably if the major portion of the work that they could do could be reserved for them, instead of importing any unskilled labour, which in many cases works only sufficient long to qualify for unemployment pay and then leaves the job for others from the same quarter to come and take it up to the exclusion of our own people. I have not gone into great detail, but if the suggestions of my hon. Friend and myself are worth anything, it is not beyond the wit of the Minister of Labour and his staff to cut out the chaff and leave something which might be useful in relieving—I will not say curing—the unemployment problem.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I shall be expressing the opinion of the House if I extend to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion our sincere congratulations. They have stated in a moderate manner and with great lucidity and candour their reasons for moving the Motion. I do not know what were the feelings of other hon. Members when the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery) announced that he would call attention to unemployment. I had rather mixed feelings of admiration and sorrow for him. I admire the courage of a supporter of the Government in calling the attention of the Government to unemployment. I am sure he has not had too pleasant a time since, and no doubt the Chief Whip and other Members of the Government have been on to him for transgressing in this way and creating embarrassment for the Government. When I saw the Motion on the Order Paper I did not think it quite expressed the hon. Member's own feelings about unemployment. He and the Seconder of the Motion are Lancashire Members like myself, and there are very few Lancashire Members in any party who are satisfied with the policy of the Government in regard to unemployment. There may be some who are more satisfied than others, but Lancashire Members are dissatisfied.
I do not think that the first sentence of his Motion is the hon. Member's own: it has been suggested by somebody else. I do not think he wants to praise the Government for what they have been doing in the matter of unemployment; I am certain that if he had expressed his own feelings he would have condemned

them. He also suggested that he was in sympathy with the latter part, but he did not mention the first part of our Amendment on the Paper—in line 1, to leave out from "That," to "there," in line 2, and to insert:
in the opinion of this House, subject to the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observance of trade union rates and conditions.
The hon. Member seems anxious to hand a bouquet to the Government and asks us to be thankful to the Government for the manner in which they have handled unemployment. That is asking too much. I heard the hon. Member for West Salford speak on the 1st of this month in support of our Motion dealing with public assistance, and it must be said for him that he was in the Lobby supporting his speech. He told us on that occasion that in Salford £30,000 a year went in supplementing old age pensions, equal to a rate of 6½d. in the £. I was not surprised to find him in the Lobby supporting our Motion. But in Lancashire we cannot feel grateful to this Government. The cotton industry has been neglected in a most disgraceful way. There have been references to it in every King's Speech for years, but very little has been done for the industry. In the last King's Speech there is this reference:
The difficulties of the cotton industry are engaging the attention of my Ministers, and proposals which require legislation are before them.
That was in November, 1938, and in February, 1939, the proposals are still before them. When the Prime Minister was asked whether he could undertake that they would be brought before the House before Easter he could give no such undertaking. The cotton industry has suffered more than any other industry in the country since the Government took office. Only last year the export of cotton piece-goods was £12,000,000 lower than the year before. In fact, the export of cotton piece-goods last year was almost identical in value and amount with the exports in the year of the great cotton famine 70 years ago. And yet we are asked to recognise the value of the efforts of this Government. It cannot be done as regards the cotton industry. If I turn to agriculture, the only difference I find is that agriculture has received more public money than the cotton industry. It has received scores if not hundreds of millions of pounds in the last 10 years,


and to-day there are fewer men working on the land than when the Government took office, and a much less acreage under cultivation. And we are asked to recognise the value of the Government's efforts.
I turn to shipping, building, and mining. It is claimed that the Government have done something for mining. What have they done? We have 60,000 fewer men in work to-day than when the Government took office, and were it not for the indirect result of the armaments programme; the mining industry would be in a very parlous position to-day. I do not think we ought to recognise the value of the efforts put forward by the Government to stimulate industry. It is difficult to assess the value, direct or indirect, of rearmament in finding employment, but if we could assess its value I think we should find that all that has been done has been to reduce the number of the unemployed. We are not prepared to agree that the Government arc to be complimented on their activities to deal with unemployment.
As to the second part of the Motion, I can hardly believe that the hon. Member for West Salford had anything to do with its drafting. I feel that it has been handed to him. It is the type of Motion which the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Captain Ramsay), or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in his more degenerate days would have introduced. It is typically Fascist in its way of dealing with the problem. It pays no regard to trade union rates of pay, and no regard to trade and conditions or to housing. It is the Hitler method of dealing with unemployment. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was consulted about the drafting beforehand. He has to reply and he may have had some idea of the terms of the Motion. We cannot agree to the latter part of the Motion. So far as the first sentence is concerned, it can remain there. I recognise the value of the Government's contribution as nil; indeed, it is something worse. I am not concerned about the first sentence, but I am about the second part, and that is the reason why I suggest we should insert something about trade union rates and conditions.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for West Salford say that he was in sympathy with and was prepared

to accept that part of the Amendment; but when I listened to his constructive proposals, I was far from being satisfied, for if the Government adopted every suggestion that he made, the unemployment problem would still be very far from being solved. I maintain that we cannot deal effectively with the unemployment problem on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones) say that he has rot much patience with suggestions for making a road here or widening a road there, since that affords only temporary relief. I agree with the hon. Member. I remember that on the construction of the Liverpool-Manchester road, a fine piece of work costing some £3,000,000, quite a number of men were employed, but all those men are out of work row.
Such work alleviates the position, and when a job of that kind comes along, there is keen competition among the unemployed. If a vacancy is advertised, there are 100 or 200 applicants. But one cannot go on making roads for ever. I agree with the proposal contained in the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert). The waterways of this country have been seriously neglected. In coming down from the North, one passes mile after mile of good canals now in disuse. The deepening and widening of those canals would be a good piece of public work, but it would not last very long, or employ many men. The beautifying of Britain is a job that ought to be done by this Government and by any Government, and something ought to be done immediately to remove the drab-ness from many of the industrial areas. But on those lines there is no solution of the unemployment problem; when all those things had been done, the real problem would still remain.
In winding up the Debate which took place last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) made a number of constructive proposals, and I do not see any hope of solving the problem of unemployment if those proposals are disregarded. What is the problem? I can speak for the mining industry, and other hon. Members can speak for other industries. In the mining industry, the problem is mechanisation. Work that was previously done by human


labour is now being done by machines. It has been said time and again in the House that for every thousand people who find work on the lines suggested by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, several thousands are thrown out of work in the same period because of mechanisation. We can never catch up with mechanisation. The mechanisation of the mining industry has putout of work thousands of miners. I do not complain much about that, for I have a feeling that mining ought to be done by machines and not by men. I do not care how soon the day comes when men do not have to descend into the bowels of the earth and face the dangers and risks of mining.
But as soon as there is mechanisation, a problem is created, and that problem is how to deal with the displaced labour. The methods which hon. Members on this side advocate for dealing with that problem are not the same as those suggested by the hon. Members opposite. We have no objection to the work which they propose being done, for it is necessary work, but it deals with the problem only partially. Our method is different. If the number of workpeople required to work in an industry is reduced because of mechanisation, then the amount of work to be done by each worker ought to be reduced. The unemployment problem cannot be solved in any other way. Year in and year out we have suggested that method, and the Government, in their international policy at Geneva, have made it difficult, and in their home policy, they have hindered every effort that has been made in that direction. It is only on those lines that unemployment can be abolished.
Of course, I think that an effort should be made to restore the cotton industry in Lancashire. Greater exports of cotton would be a good thing for Lancashire, and a general improvement in the export trade would be a good thing; but let it be remembered that other countries also are trying to increase their exports. An economic war is going on. Herr Hitler is not the only person who says, "We must export or die." That is said in almost every country in the world. The economic war is going on, and only agreements can stop it. Trade rivalry and efforts to sell cheaper than other countries are hopeless. The Government

have not been too successful in international agreements with regard to trade and their efforts at Geneva have been very unsatisfactory. At the International Labour Office they have not done much to improve the atmosphere in the economic sphere.
I submit that, first of all, we must face the real cause of the trouble. It is that machinery is now doing work which formerly was done by human labour-That is the main cause of the trouble, as every hon. Member knows; and the only way of dealing with it is on the lines suggested by hon. Members on this side. I was very pleased to hear the Mover of the Motion say that the present social system is behind all the trouble. I agree with him. I should be surprised if any man from Lancashire disagreed. Lancashire has seen this to a greater extent than most counties, because Lancashire was an industrial county at a time when many counties that are now industrial were agricultural. However, the hon. Member did not suggest that this social system should be changed. He did not suggest that it should be abolished and replaced by a better system. He wants to keep this social system; he wants to go on trifling with the unemployment problem under this system. I suggest that if we insist upon trade union rates and conditions being observed in the case of the unemployed when they are found work under this system, we shall never solve the unemployment problem. I sometimes wonder whether people who support the present economic system dare to solve the unemployment problem. Let hon. Members imagine what would happen if there were more jobs than workers. If that were the position, the authority of the employers would disappear. I remember that during the War, when I worked in a colliery, there were more jobs vacant at the colliery than there were colliers in the neighbourhood. We had no difficulty in geting our rights then. After the War, I worked at the same colliery, but at that time there were more workers seeking jobs than there were jobs vacant, and we could not get our rights.
I am not sure that the supporters of the present economic system are anxious to have a situation in which there are more jobs than workers; for they know that their power in industry depends upon


there being more workers than there are jobs. Sometimes I suspect their willingness to solve the problem. If there is a willingness to solve it, I am convinced it can be solved. Hon. Members on these benches believe that it is essential to change the economic system. We are convinced that it is only by replacing the present system of production for private financial gain by a system of production for the national welfare that we shall be able finally to solve the unemployment problem. In the meantime, there are some things that ought to be done. There is a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and I wonder whether a similar office in the industrial and economic sphere would not be a good thing. I find support for that view from a rather unexpected quarter—an article in the "Daily Mail" written by a writer, who is well known, although not as an economist. I know him better as one who broadcasts very well on sporting events. His name is Howard Marshall, and he has a paragraph here which puts that point rather effectively:
A national problem must be dealt with on a national basis instead of by commissioners with limited authority. We should have a Minister for national reconstruction, a Minister with Cabinet rank, who would co-ordinate the work of all departments, a man, I suggest, of the calibre of Sir John Reith"—
he would, naturally, make that suggestion—
who would take unemployment by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it. This implies national planning of industry which is the logical approach to a national problem. To deal sectionally with unemployment is manifestly absurd. To segregate the unemployed in Special Areas is psychologically and practically unsound. The whole country is a Special Area and upon this simple fact the attack must be based. A Minister for reconstruction—that is out first need. Let him crack the whip, democratically, of course, but with such vital force that this bogy will fade away before him.
I think that suggestion is worthy of consideration by the Government. For them to deal with unemployment in the same way as they are dealing with the possibility of war would be very effective, and in my opinion we ought to have such a Minister with Cabinet rank. I find that another friend of mine, my hon. and Seamed Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) also rather expressed my own feelings on this question in the Debate on Thursday last. He put it this way:

It is the wicked refusal of the Government to finance peace-time developments in our social services, with the adequate and necessary control; hat must come with any planned scheme, that makes it impossible to bring alleviation to the problem of unemployment; a problem that must be solved in the long run by Socialist methods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1939; cols. 2030–31, Vol. 343.]
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend in that statement. I think he puts the position quite clearly and I was very sorry that, having said that Socialism was the only hope of solving the problem, he then suggested that we might consider putting Socialism into cold storage for a while. That did not make very much appeal to me, and when he said that it was necessary to do this in order to enable certain democratically-minded people to support democracy, I was still more doubtful. What he conveyed to me was, that there were sections of people in this country who would prefer Facism without democracy to Socialism with democracy. I am not so sure that he is not light in that, but for myself I prefer not to put Socialism into cold storage. Since, as he says and as I agree, the only hope of solving the problem is Socialism, our clear duty is to stick to that policy. I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member did not indicate at the beginning of his speech that he was moving the Amendment on the Paper, and I did not understand that he was doing so, but I must tell him that I do not select his Amendment at this stage of the Debate.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on what ground you refuse to select the Amendment since the Mover of the Motion has; agreed to accept it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is absolute power in the Chair to decline to select Amendments and that without giving reasons. In this cast I had every intention of selecting this Amendment, but I gather that there is a general desire in the House to have a discussion on the Motion, and the Amendment would narrow the Debate very considerably if accepted now.

8.50 p.m.

M. Kingsley Griffith: I join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. I liked particularly the way in which they faced the problem and did not try to mini-


mise it. We heard from the Minister of Labour the other day an analysis of the figures of unemployment which, I have no doubt, had a certain value, but which would seem to have had the object of trying to persuade the House that the unemployment problem was not really there or at any rate not in the measure in which we thought it to exist. I find the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery) referring to the inability of our industry at present to absorb more than 75 per cent. of the labour available. That is a very strong way of putting it, and the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Lees-Jones), who seconded, referred to 2,000,000 unemployed as the figure which we had to face. I am glad that the subject has been tackled in that way and that there is no pretension about it.
I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), except in the specifically Socialist parts of his speech at the end, but I cannot blame him for having played his signature tune as the band faded out. I am prepared to do the same for myself at the beginning of my speech. That is to say, I am bound to regard the present employment situation as a very considerable condemnation of the Government's policy of tariffs. That is what people would expect me to emphasise and I do so. That is my signature tune. It is almost pathetic now to remember the extravagant promises that were made by certain of the more ardent advocates of tariffs, like the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and others, about the tremendous revolution in the unemployment situation which would be brought about as soon as we abandoned the Free Trade system. This is not the occasion for an elaborate analysis of the position in that respect, but the keenest supporters of tariffs must be a little disappointed at the unemployment figures to-day after all these years in which they have had a free hand in the imposition of their favourite remedy.
I am not, however, asking or expecting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who will reply, to embark upon a disquisition and an argument about Free Trade and tariffs, any more than about capitalism and Socialism. I think it would be unreasonable to ask the Government on a Debate

like this, to abandon all the principles on which, after all, they were elected, and to adopt a completely different system. I think it is more practical to address oneself to-night to what the National Government, elected on the mandate which they received, can reasonably be expected to do. On those lines, I find myself, like the hon. Member for Ince, unable to subscribe to any very hearty congratulations on the value of the efforts of the Government to stimulate industry and find employment. To what do they amount? I have mentioned tariffs and their results. They would, I suppose, also point to the Special Areas Act. I am not denying that the provisions of that Act have had some value for the areas in which they operate. I live on the border of a Special Area and I am, at least, aware of how uncomfortable it may be to be just outside a Special Area, to get all the disadvantages belonging to a depressed area and to find special advantages being given to another area just over the border.
I say this in all seriousness. Let not the Government imagine that in the Special Areas legislation and the provisions made under it, they are increasing the net amount of employment. They are not doing so. They are just wheeling it about from one part of the country to another. That may be a valuable thing to do in certain circumstances. If you are considering the problem merely as one of location of industry, and if you say "London is too much populated," or "There are too many people in the Midlands; let us have more in South Wales and in Durham"—then, something might be done by the Special Areas Act to assist, in some small measure, in the redistribution of population. But most emphatically it is not a contribution to the total amount of employment. Let us suppose you start a new boot factory on a trading estate. That may be supplying a certain amount of labour in that district. It is probable that it will have an adverse effect, however, in some adjoining district, except under one condition, a condition of the very greatest importance. If, at the same time, you are so far increasing the purchasing power of the people as a whole that they can afford to buy more boots, then perhaps you can take up the production of the new factory without impairing the employment in the old one, but only upon that condition do


you produce any net increase in the total volume of employment.
The kind of thing that I have in mind —and I am not expecting the Parliamentary Secretary to deal in any detail with a point of which I have not been able to give him notice—is a particular new employment started in the North-East area. I am informed on the best authority that there is now being started at Hartlepool, by a Dutch firm, a new concrete factory with the special advantages that may be enjoyed in that area. Now there are already, I am told, 29 factories in that area working in the same line of business, and some of them, some which I specially have in mind, are in that Tees-side area, Middlesbrough and Stockton, which does not enjoy any of the adventages of the Special Areas, and they are therefore faced now with subsidised competition.
From my point of view, this is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. It is once again merely moving employment about, and it is moving it about actually inside the same area, where the unemployment conditions are substantially the same, and it is not even what the Minister of Labour originally intended when he started the Special Areas Act legislation. He intended, I imagine, from his own speeches, to start alternative light industries in districts which mainly depended on heavy industries. This is not anything of that kind: this is merely bringing one other competitor into an already overcrowded field. But once again I would say that if the Government had some programme on foot, some well-conceived programme worked out ahead, by which they knew that they were going to be able to absorb all the productive capacity of the 29 existing factories and of the new one as well, that would be an altogether different thing, and no one would find me objecting to it. But I see no such prospect at the present time, and although, as I say, I am not expecting the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this to-night, perhaps he will allow me to send him the information that I have, in order that he may consider it. I mention it in the present Debate merely as an instance of the limitation of this kind of Special Areas Act legislation when you consider it as a means of actually producing a net increase of employment.
What are the other stimulants? There is the stimulant of armaments. I must refer here to a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in winding up the Vote of Censure Debate the other night. It would be unreasonable to expect him to be here or; this occasion. I wanted to interrupt him when he was actually speaking, but as; his time was short, I did not think it fair to do so. He challenged my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) on the whole policy of spending money to increase employment. He went back to our 1929 programme, and he twitted my hon. and gallant Friend and said, "Well, your party was; then proposing an expenditure of only £200,000,000, and they expected that each million pounds would promote an employment of 4,000 men, on the average." Then he said, "Look at us. On armaments we are spending so much more than £200,000,000 that we must be doing very much better than you ever hoped to do." That sounds very reasonable on the face of it, as a matter of arithmetic, but there is an underlying fallacy, and that is, that when you are driven to put your main national effort into armanents—a most regrettable necessity, as I think everybody will agree —you have to face the consequence that, although you may be giving employment by every million pounds that you spend on armaments—and I am not denying that you do—the very causes that force you to build those armaments are undermining the confidence and the enterprise of all the rest of your industries. The result is that you are losing on the swings what you are making on the roundabouts the whole time.
Therefore, the employment that is provided by armaments is never to be regarded as a net gain in the employment of the country. It may even on the whole yield an adverse balance. I am bound to say that I like to seek comfort where I can, and the converse of that argument is this, that perhaps when our need for armaments passes, as I pray God it may, one need not necessarily anticipate that the whole of that surplus labour will be thrown on the market it once. One may have reason to hope that when that great burden is lifted, confidence may be restored so far that in a short time we may devote in more profitable directions what we are at present devoting to the purposes of destruction. That perhaps is


going rather farther into the future than any of us would care to do. I am not denying that as long as the armament process is continued, I shall be very glad to pluck out of "this nettle, danger" such employment at least as I can get out of it, and I am certain that a really comprehensive grasp of the needs of the safety preparations against air raids will and must lead, if it is undertaken in a sufficiently courageous spirit, to a very great deal of employment, employment of a mixed character, employment in the iron and steel trades, in concrete and other trades, and also to a great deal of unskilled labour in the actual preparatory work. [Interruption.] I believe that the miners are at least in this position, that generally any great increase in general activity is likely to be reflected in some degree in employment in the mining industry.
I am not as contemptuous as were the Seconder of the Motion and the hon. Member above the Gangway of expenditure of the type which they chose as an example, namely, expenditure on road construction. I think it is not altogether a satisfactory way of dismissing this kind of employment to say, "Oh, well, it employs a certain number of men, but when you have finished your roads, they are all out of work again." That kind of argument applies also to shipbuilding, for example. I always hear it said on Tees-side that the most melancholy day is the day when the ship is launched, because that means that the job is over. In jobs where you have a continual demand for a staple product which is immediately consumable, as, for example, foodstuffs, tobacco, beer, or anything of that kind, of which the consumption is pretty regular. you can depend on a regularity of employment, but there are other kinds of work, such as capital construction, the creation of machinery, the building of ships, roads, and things of that kind, in which you come to the end of one job necessarily, and you have to wait for another, but if trade is booming, you generally find it comes along.
I have mentioned ship construction, and I think that in any consideration of the prospects of employment the matter of the construction of tramp shipping should be taken most seriously into consideration. On this matter I am almost

prepared to say what, as a Liberal, I hate to say, that I hardly mind what it costs. The preservation of a sufficient shipping fleet to supply our most elemental needs is just as much a part of our armament preparations as anything that we can possibly do. The conditions at the present moment, as anybody who has studied the figures knows, is perfectly appalling. The amount of unemployment among boiler-makers and others who depend on that industry is shocking. They are skilled men, and if they are left out of work too long they will melt away as skilled labour does. This is a matter which should be taken most seriously into consideration. I need do no more than mention the question of the storage of pig iron, because the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards) has made the subject peculiarly his own and he has mentioned the matter recently in the House.
All these things can be done. Beyond them the restoration of the export trade remains one of the main lines of approach. I agree with the necessity of concluding as many trade agreements as possible, and I think that the Washington Agreement is one of the best things the Government have done. There is one special point in the export trade which I should like to mention. I mentioned it to the Secretary for Overseas Trade when he was introducing the Export Credits Bill. It seems to me that in China, oppressed as that country is with many misfortunes, there is a great opportunity for the industry of this country. China, which has closed her ordinary avenues of trade communications to the east, is looking to the west. She has made a road in the direction of Burma and she plans a railway in that direction too. When I asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade whether under the export credits scheme credits could be made available without which, of course, no such work could be undertaken, he told me that he thought that operation was too large to be contemplated under the provisions of that measure and that it would require special legislation. He did not close the door in any way. He did not intimate that the Government had shut their minds against prospects of that kind. They would be very short-sighted if they did.
There we have an industrious nation. China contains a large proportion of the human race. The Chinese have suffered


conquest and misfortune again and again, but they have always come round. If they are looking in our direction, we should be ready, in their interests as well as our own, to answer the call. I believe that there are these practical things which may be done without in any way going against the principles held by hon. Members who sit on that side of the House. I offer them in a constructive spirit and I hope that we may get some response before the end of the Debate.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) referred to the importance of our export trade. Napoleon once called this country a nation of shop-keepers, and our strength to-day is as much as ever it was in our trade and industry. Therefore, we look with particular satisfaction to the fact that a Government mission is about to travel through Europe to obtain better trade facilities for our industries. I would like to devote my main argument to two points which the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery), in his admirable speech, laid before the House. He stressed the importance of the co-ordination of man-power and the distribution of employment. What is the essence of the problem of unemployment? It is the mal-adjustment of the labour force to changing conditions. The export trades, such as cotton and coal, have declined, while home trades, such as motor cars and artificial silk, have increased. Labour has moved from the north to the south and the Midlands, and new factories have arisen round the new centres of population. I am certain that the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade have numberless statistics dealing with these facts. It would, therefore, be comparatively easy to co-ordinate these into a national survey.
If we have to tackle a problem like unemployment it is easier to look at the picture as a whole rather than in pieces. When we look at the picture as a whole we can lay our fingers on the bad spots and say that these are our immediate objective and the problems which we must sooner or later deal with. A national survey is all the more opportune in these days because the needs of national defence are altering day by day the entire national economy. The once defence against the bombing plane is dispersion. We have begun to realise this. We have

decided to move parts of Woolwich from their exposed position on the Thames estuary to Lancashire and South Wales. We are making plans to evacuate hundreds of thousands; of women and children from our great cities should war come. We are making plans to divert the vital food convoys to the western ports of England where they would be comparatively safe from the menace of air bombing. This policy of dispersion is bringing countless new problems in its train. Let me give an example from the last War. Six ships carrying 27,000 tens of cargo were diverted from London to Plymouth. To unload those ships in Plymouth took three weeks instead of the normal one week, owing to the lack of labour facilities, and that at a time when every ship which escaped the track o1 an enemy torpedo was of vital service to the Allies. Owing to lack of transport only 9,000 out of the 27,000 tons reached London. The rest was disposed of locally.
It has been calculated that if Bristol were to be a source of supply for London the Great Western Railway would at once have to increase its rolling-stock by 140 engines, by no fewer than 12,000 carriages, and by 1,200 insulated containers. If war broke out and convoys carrying foodstuffs for our civil population and raw material for oar industries were diverted at a minutes notice to western ports, much development work would have to be done there. There would have to be more warehouses, more docking space and more opportunities for transport. This development would give us a chance to employ many men in our building trades. Then there is the question of the defence of our great cities against air attack. If you fly over many of our great cities you will see beneath you row upon row of narrow streets where the houses are often built back to back. Imagine high explosives and incendiary bombs raining down on those crowded areas. Imagine ambulances and fire brigades attempting to reach their destinations, many of them in streets blocked by huge bomb craters and flooded by burst water mains. What a target for an enemy bomber; a bait box of helpless tortured humanity. I am told reliably that all German "owns are to be decentralised in the course of the next few years. The population of Berlin is about 4,000,000, and by 1950 it will have been reduced to 1,000,000. The Nazi autho-


rities are driving great thoroughfares through the crowded areas so that the traffic, even in the greatest emergency, will not be impeded. Factories are being decentralised, taken from the centre of the city, and set in open spaces and surrounded at suitable intervals by the living houses of the people engaged there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can see the relevancy of what the hon. Member is saying. But I think he is getting too much into details which are rather far from the subject in a short Debate.

Mr. Kerr: I was coming rapidly to my point, that these were vital objectives which should be carried out in the near future and would give employment to our people. I was coining to the suggestion that there is ample work in London in decentralising our various centres of production and, above all, in creating open spaces.

Mr. A. Edwards: As I shall probably not have an opportunity of intervening in this Debate I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member to a reply given by the Minister of Transport to a question of mine in which I raised this very point, and he refused to take any action to dissuade the Port of London Authority from spending £10,000,000 upon extending their accommodation.

Mr. Kerr: I regret that I was not here to hear the answer of the Minister of Transport. I am trying to make the point, with which I think the hon. Member agrees, that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to create open spaces in our great towns, and that what is wise from the health point of view in time of peace is also wise from the safety point of view in time of war. There is also ample work for people such as builders temporarily thrown out of employment, to build highways leading out of London. If London is to be an efficient front line trench in the next war surely it is a vital necessity that its communications should remain unbroken. But we have allowed our great arterial highways, like the Great West Road, to be silted up with ribbon development and with factories as well. What will happen in war as a result? With convoys coming into London with food from the western ports, with lorries carrying out the women and children who

are being evacuated, with buses taking hospital cases from the first-line dressing stations to base hospitals, there will be tremendous confusion. There is much useful work that can be done in ensuring that these new roads are kept free and are developed so that London can be fed and maintained in time of war.
To come very briefly to my conclusion, a national survey at the present moment would give us a tremendous number of very vital objectives. We should have slum clearance schemes, the provision of open spaces, the construction of deep air-raid shelters, the construction of holiday camps to be used for evacuation purposes in time of war, and we should have a great development of our western ports, so that, should the emergency come, transport would not be hindered. I believe it was La Rochefoucauld who once said
There is no situation, however bad, which does not allow an able man to derive some profit from it,
and I believe that this question of preparation for defence, bad as it may seem to us, may nevertheless be a blessing in disguise if it leads us to replan our national economy on healthier and more practical lines.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) rose——

Mr. Tinker: May I ask for your guidance on this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? It has become a growing practice for the Government speaker to speak before the conclusion of a Debate. In this instance there has been only one speaker from the Opposition benches. I ask you whether it is right for the Government speaker to reply before the case has been put from the Opposition benches. I want to raise my voice in protest against it because this practice is growing and Private Members' time on Private Members' days is being taken by the Government——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tinker: —who intervened before the case has been put from this side. I want your guidance because——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to go on in that way. What he is trying to say appears to me to be a criticism of the Chair, and that I cannot allow. If the Government representative chooses to speak now it is probably because he thinks it is for the convenience


of the House. It is not a case in which the Government representative is to wind up the Debate. This is a Private Member's Motion, and I think the natural and proper arrangement which I should carry out so far as it lay in my power would be to call for purposes of winding up the Debate somebody supporting the Mover of the Motion.

Mr. Tinker: Perhaps you have not the power now, but I am raising this objection so that Government speakers——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Lennox-Boyd.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I need hardly assure the hon. Member or the House that I have no wish to curtail discussion.

Mr. Tinker: But it is being done every time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be here until the conclusion of the Debate and take careful note of any points which are raised from any side of the House.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He must know very well has we like to get answers to the questions which we put during the Debate. This Debate will be reported in the Press——

Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to address questions directly to a Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Minister gives way, certainly.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Minister has been good enough to give way to me and I am making an appeal to him. He has a perfect right to speak now, but it is a very long-standing practice in this House, going back for 50 years, that the Minister should wait until the case has been put. We know very well that there are some advantages in the matter of Press reporting for the Minister to get up to reply before it is very late, but the most important factor is the Debate across the Floor of the House, and I do appeal to him to recognise the ancient practice and to remember that Members desire answers to their questions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask for your guidance. Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I understand that if the Amendment to the

Motion, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), is moved, that after that, discussion must be confined' strictly to the two points in that Amendment, and I take it that it would undoubtedly limit the contribution which I hope to make to this discussion if I were to speak after that Amendment had been moved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so. Directly the Amendment is moved the discussion will have to be confined strictly within the limits of that Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: If the Minister himself would delay answering me moving of the Amendment would come a little later than we have anticipated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is rather unfortunate that hon. Members should apply to me to join in, in making these arrangements regarding the Debate. One of my difficulties in allotting time before II o'clock to the different groups in the House arises from my having to make provision for two speeches by the Mover and Seconder of a narrowing Amendment at some time or other; but in this case the Debate is on a Motion by the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion, and it is they who have first claim on the House. If I were given to under stand that the Amendment would be moved only shortly or formally at the end, it might assist the Debate very considerably from that point of view.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that no Member on any side of the House will quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery) who has introduced this Motion to-night. I can assure the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) that far from having any desire to inflict on the workpeople of this country a lower standard of wages than the normal trade union rates, I have nothing to quarrel about as regards the object of the second part of his Amendment. I might suggest, in passing, that it seems a little unfair to see my sinister hand in the failure to include those words in the Amendment. Nor, I am sure, would any hon. Member, least of all the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), expect mo this evening, within the limits of this Debate, and in my position as Parliamentary Secretary, to give answers to questions involving high policy or problems affecting


the world-wide situation. I can assure the House that no one regrets this Motion, least of all my right hon. Friend and myself. There are some who say that the problem of unemployment is so vast and of such world-wide extent that no Government in this or any other country can do much to diminish it. I do not myself take that view. I believe there is a considerable amount of constructive work that can be done quite apart from efforts to revive the export trade, and I hope before I sit down to make one or two suggestions on particular aspects of this problem which may be of interest to hon. Members.
My hon. Friend who proposed the Motion started by stressing the fact that mainly in a revival of the export trade lies the solution of this problem. The hon. Member for Ince said that only trade agreements will help. It is not for me to recount the various trade agreements that have been made by this Government. That was done in part by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the occasion of the recent Vote of Censure, and he was indeed himself censured afterwards in some organs of the Press for talking about the export trade in relation to the problem of unemployment. I do not intend to-night to incur similar censure but I do hold that in a revival of our great export trade and the cultivation of some part of the untapped market at home lies the surest hope for the unemployed.
But before I leave this particular problem, the question of ordinary trade, I desire to draw the attention of the House to this fact. Though unhappily to-day we have once more passed the two million mark for the number of those out of work —or rather we passed it in the month of January—if we compare the situation today with the situation when we last had 2,000,000 unemployed in February, 1936, there are actually to-day 750,000 more people in work than there were on that occasion. That is apart from the number of agricultural and other workers who are newly insured under the Acts. The main service that this Government can render to the country is so to increase the stabilising forces of the world that ordinary trade may revive. I must confess that although I believe the trading estates have a great future before them no one could fail to be impressed by the fact that

the temporary setback in trade last January threw out of work in the Special Areas alone four times as many people as at present employed in the new industrial undertakings in the Special Areas. That is no condemnation of the trading estate as such, but it ought to make this House hesitate before it discards any useful weapon for the revival of ordinary trade. The hon. Member said that subsidies, if found necessary, should be applied. They have been applied in the case of those industries whose survival is of national interest. Then he said—this is a contention with which no one can deny—that even allowing for the greatest possible revival of the export trade at this moment and the happiest situation for ordinary trade, we may still have a problem of unemployment or under-employment at home with which we shall have to grapple. We cannot wait until the whole world is entirely at peace. I have no wish to-night to diminish the importance of that side of the problem but there are two particular aspects in this question with which I believe hon. Members would like me to deal. My right hon. Friend in the course of the last two years and more has himself focused attention on the problem of the elderly worker and the problem of the young unemployed man and I think I should fail in my task if I sat down to-night without making some contribution to both those problems. To deal effectively with those classes it may well be that they must be regarded as social problems which cannot be dealt with on strictly economic lines. If so, and if the country came to that conclusion, it would have to be admitted among other things that preference should be given in filling vacancies for work to certain types of unemployed chosen primarily for social reasons, and as it is no part of the intention of the Government that people should be given work below agreed rates, this might well add to the cost of the work in hand, and, when considering the pro-proposals of the Government in regard to camps or any possible proposals that may be put before the House to see that certain sections of the community get an opportunity of work on those schemes, we ought also to bear in mind that any possible increase in the cost will be more than off-set by the social advantages that will accrue. Any policy of that kind, pursued logically and successfully, will in-


volve an even greater use of the employment Exchanges than at present for filling vacancies on contract work or work of oilier kinds.
In my personal capacity before I was translated to my present office I have always wished that the bulk of the recruitment of industry should be done through the Employment Exchanges, which are in touch with the problem in each district and can make sure as far as possible that the work provided in a district primarily aids the people in that district itself. I think it may be of interest to the House if I remind it that the Contracts Co-ordinating Committee have agreed as follows in the case of contracts of the value of £500 or over:
The contractor shall notify the appropriate employment exchange as and when any additional labour is required to carry out this contract. Contractors are not precluded from seeking to obtain workpeople by other means also, but they are requested to inform the employment exchange without delay of any vacancies so filled.
The House will appreciate that though there is an obligation in that case on Government contractors to notify vacancies, there is no obligation on them to take their workpeople through the exchanges.
In regard to those two particular problems of the elderly worker and the young unemployed man, the problem of the elderly worker in this country is closely allied to the problem of long-term unemployment. That is why it is a matter of gratification—and where there are cheerful signs they ought to be stressed— that in the figures for January of this year those who have been out of work for 12 months and more actually are only 15 per cent. of the workers unemployed— the lowest figure since 1933. Previously a much larger proportion than that have been out of work for a period of 12 months. At the present time only 15 per cent. of our people now unemployed have been out of work for 12 months or more, and as these are not entirely, but largely, elderly workers, there has obviously been an improvement, due no doubt to the skilled man and the experienced worker coming once more into his own.
But none the less there are other factors which must be brought forward, not least the fact that at the date of the last inquiry 60 per cent. of those male applicants for benefit or allowances who had been out of work for two years or more

were aged 45–64 years, and 70 per cent. of those who had been out of work for over five years were in the same age group. Those people do represent a real hard problem, and I am not attempting to-night to diminish it.

Mr. Gallacher: Would you not take up the question of the Admiralty discharging men on account of age and thus increasing this problem?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are some occupations for which unfortunately elderly people are not suitable, but any suggestions that the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring to the attention of my right hon. friend I am sure will be looked into. The House will have noticed that a week or two ago, at Geneva, this question of the elderly worker was raised at a meeting of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that, having attended a meeting of the International Labour Office last summer, I am convinced that much useful work can be done, not only in the realm of international understanding, but also in helping to solve our own problems, by the interest which has been displayed in this matter then;. There was a remarkable unanimity at the meeting of the Governing Body. When the United States workers' delegate proposed that the problem of the elderly worker should be investigated by the International Labour Office, the representatives of the three groups reported complete unanimity, and the British delegate took a strong line in giving an undertaking that we in this country would help in every way possible to make the inquiry a success. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend at an early date to issue an invitation to the trade unions and employers' organisations, to help in this inquiry, so that, if possible, really practical results may ensue. I have not time on this occasion to develop at any length other and purely administrative measures which exist whereby the problem of the elderly unemployed is being looked after.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a most important matter. Are we to understand that the sole contribution that the Government are making to the problem of the elderly worker and the person who has been unemployed for a long time is to conduct an inquiry of an international character?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. One other contribution has been this: As recently as April, 1937, those who had been out of work for 12 months and more formed 25 per cent. of the total number unemployed, whereas to-day they are only 15 per cent., and, as many of them are elderly workers, that is a very valuable contribution. It will interest the House to know that we propose to collaborate very vigorously with the International Labour Office in trying to see that good results ensue.
The second problem is the problem of the young unemployed man. Attention has recently been focused on this problem, partly by means of a correspondence which was started in the "Times" newspaper by a most valuable letter from Sir Malcolm Stewart. Sir Malcolm Stewart has many advantages and great experience. I do not suppose that the Opposition will count it an advantage when I say that he is a constituent of my own, but, none the less, I feel that, in spite of this handicap, as it may be regarded, his views will be listened to with attention in this House. This is a very grave problem, but the fact that it is a limited problem, and perhaps susceptible to real practical treatment, makes it not insoluble. No one can feel happy, at a time like this, to see from last year's report of the Unemployment Assistance Board that some 52,000 male applicants of the Board, between 16 and 34 years of age, had been out of work for 12 months or more; or—an even worse story —that some 21,000 of them had been out of work for three years or more.
As the House knows, various training facilities are provided by the Ministry of Labour, but I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to convince people of the value of training unless they are reasonably certain of getting a job at the end of their period of training. I fully appreciate that fact, but, all the same, I do not agree that it is a happy situation when, with the whole country to draw upon for the instructional centres, we cannot, at our centres throughout the whole country, keep 4,000 places or so full during the winter months. I noticed, in an Amendment which was on the Order Paper last week, but was not moved, when the Debate on the Motion of Censure took place, one or two references to the question of persuasion to under-

go training, and I think it may be of interest to the House if I let them know —many hon. Members know the situation already—what the conditions are under which persuasion is or is not exercised at the moment in order to get people to undergo training.
With regard to unemployed juveniles between the minimum age for entry into insurance and the age of 18, they may, as the House perhaps knows, subject to certain important qualifications, be required to attend an authorised course of instruction, and, if they fail to attend in accordance with the requirements, they are liable to be disqualified for the receipt of unemployment benefit if they are over 16 years of age. In the case of juveniles between 14 and 16, in respect of whom dependant's benefit is paid, dependant's benefit may be disallowed for a refusal to undergo training. This procedure, whereby benefit can be withdrawn from a juvenile who refuses a course of instruction, or dependant's benefit may be refused for the same reason, does not apply to unemployment assistance, which can be paid in spite of refusal on the part of the juvenile to undergo instruction. I hope that what I have just said will meet one or two of the uncertainties in the minds of some hon. Members such as perhaps were envisaged in the Amendment which was on the Order Paper last week. With regard to adults, the position can, I think, be easily and briefly stated. It is a condition——

Mr. Harold Macmillan: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether this is material and in order, in view of your recent Ruling on the Motion, which deals with very wide questions of co-ordination and constructive proposals? Are not these detailed points more suitable for raising on a Supply Day, on the Estimates for the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not for me to say whether they are suitable. That may be a matter of opinion. They are not irrelevant to the terms of the Motion, and, therefore, they are not out of order. That is all I have to decide.

Mr. Macmillan: I was asking for guidance in view of the Ruling that you gave when the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. H. Kerr) was speaking.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case I thought that what the hon. Member was saying was outside the Motion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assure my hon. Friend that I will not elaborate that point very much, but I think it is rather important from the point of view of the proper co-ordination of man-power for which this Motion asks. I must, I think, in order to complete this part of my speech—I am not going to develop it much further—just draw attention to the fact that during the Debate on the Unemployment Bill in 1934 a pledge was given by the Minister of Labour that the fourth statutory condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit would not be used to compel adults to take a course of training. As the House perhaps knows, this condition is now enforced in a way different from the way in which it might have been applied. I believe it is the will of the House that a very vigorous effort shall be made in order to see that the younger unemployed have every opportunity of taking work. Attention is at this moment being focused on the question of camps, air-raid precautions and similar activities, and I am sure it will meet with general approval when I state that those who will be responsible for these camps will in all probability be asked to give a preference, in the recruitment of labour for the building of these camps, to young men who have been out of work for a considerable time. If it costs more, I feel sure the country will agree that the increased cost will be amply made up by the real social advantages that will result.
From time to time in this Debate a number of Members have suggested that more public works should be instituted. I do not intend at any great length to recount the lessons that were learned when public works were instituted on a large scale by the Labour party. The hon. Member for Ince cited the Manchester— Liverpool road, and suggested that it did not do more than give temporary employment to a number of people. But I must remind him that proposals of that kind formed the main part of the programme for dealing with the problem of unemployment with which his party was confronted. I suggest that there are different sorts of public works. There is a difference between public works which take the form of wondering whether a

certain municipality needs, say, a new town hall, and deciding that it does in order to give employment, and the sort of work which no one can fail to notice in many parts of the country, which stares one in the face and is crying out to be done. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) knows, I hope, quite well that I myself have tried to display some interest in the welfare of his own town in connection with that particular matter, in order to see what can be done to put idle hands to work that obviously needs doing.
The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion suggested that there should be further commissioners, presumably on the lines of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, who should take the whole country within their purview. The policy of the Government has been to weight the scales towards the Special and other distressed areas, but there is only a limited amount of new work to be given out, and the spectacle of innumerable commissioners competing for work for their own districts is not one that would appeal to people who are anxious to see work given where it is most needed. I would remind hon. Members that the recent proposals of the Government are designed to bring some form of succour to areas, other than Special Areas, of heavy unemployment.
With regard to the general question of the location of industry, I could not make a formal announcement, when the whole subject is under review by the Royal Commission, but I hope the Commission will report soon, and the matter will then be carefully considered. As to the need for a central authority, I would point out that this is quite a different matter from the institution of commissioners in every county. An hon. Member asked that we should have Government training centres in every part of the country. He will realise, I am sure, that the very success which these centres have achieved has been due to the fact that they have been able to send into employment a strikingly high percentage of the men attending them —about 90 per cent. last year. To create more applicants than it would be within the capacity of the market to absorb would be to bring the whole system into disrepute. The whole: question is under constant review and new locations for centres are being surveyed. I thank the House for the attention they have given


my remarks, despite their dislike for my somewhat early rising, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this Motion. I am sure hon. Members to whose wise observations I shall not be able to reply, that I shall ponder on them afterwards.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I understand the hon. Member to say that those who will be responsible for the camps will give special preference to young men in the work of building these camps. Does this mean that middle-aged men will be excluded?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. There will be a considerable amount of labour available, but it having been recognised that the problem of young men who have been out of work for a long time does exist, this opportunity will be taken of giving them work.

Mr. Taylor: If there is to be a preference for young men, does that not mean the exclusion of older men?

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: We welcomed the prospect of this Debate, because it seemed that for the first time for years the House was getting a little concerned about unemployment, but since the Parliamentary Secretary spoke I have felt no satisfaction at all. The hon. Member who moved the Motion will now know just how we felt last week when we moved our Vote of Censure. Now hon. Members on that side have moved a Vote of Censure—for that is what it amounts to—and the hon. Gentleman has not given them the honour of a reply. We are used to it, but I wonder what the hon. Member opposite will think of the speech which has just been made, which was supposed to be in answer to his Motion. Last week neither the Minister of Labour nor the President of the Board of Trade attempted to answer the Vote of Censure. If they had attempted to attack our Motion it would have been some satisfaction, but the Minister then made a speech like that of the hon. Gentleman to-night, which, as the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) has well said, might be appropriate to a Supply Day but has nothing to do with a Motion of this kind. The Government, apparently, does not care about unemployment at all. I understand that

the Prime Minister is delivering a speech in the country to-night, in which, I gather, he is making an important declaration on unemployment. If that is so, I wonder that he did not make it here last week; and I wonder why it is that the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Ministry of Labour, should, in dealing with a Motion of this kind, recite facts that anyone could get out of the Ministry of Labour's Report.
Why is the Prime Minister making a statement to-night? Is it that at last the Government are becoming conscious that the country is concerned about unemployment? Is it because of the long barrage of questions and speeches from this side of the House, in which we have tried to draw attention to the parlous condition described by the hon. Member who moved the Motion? Is it because the country is becoming alarmed at the state of great masses of our people? The hon. Member who moved the Motion and gave us an opportunity, for which we are grateful, of discussing this matter, made certain suggestions with reference to the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Overseas Trade going to Germany and Russia. That may be making a contribution, but we have had trade agreements for years affecting a great many industries, and what is the result? My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said that there are 60,000 fewer miners in the mining industry. I have looked up the figures, and there are 123,000 fewer miners in the industry than there were in 1921. The cotton industry must have dwindled by almost half in the last few years, in view of the unemployment among its operatives. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) gave us a description of what is happening in the shipbuilding industry. That is happening in every great industry in the country because of the increase of machinery. It has been going on for years.
The Minister of Labour convinced himself, though he did not convince the House, that there are fewer than 300,000 people who constitute the standing army of the unemployed. The chief of the Unemployment Assistance Board says that out of 570,000 under the Board 430,000 have been idle more than three months. That relates to those for whom the Board caters. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to know, certainly his


staff knows, that if he takes the people who have been idle under three months or under six weeks there are tens of thousands who have been idle for years but have been working 30 weeks, under the plan of the local authorities, and when they have worked 30 weeks, although they have been idle for five years, as many of them have, they come under the three months unemployment figure. Everybody knows that there are great industries in a similar position. It is safe to say that in the under six weeks figures there are at least 100,000 who have been idle for years, if one examines their record. I should not spend time on this matter except to show how futile is the kind of argument that there are only 280,000 who really compose the standing army of the unemployed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not say that.

Mr. Lawson: No, but the Minister of Labour used the argument to such effect last week that a great many of the Government newspapers used it in support of him. There is one further fact that has not been mentioned to-night. The hon. Member said that the burden fell unduly heavily upon the Special Areas when the unemployment figures increased. There is another way in which it falls unduly heavily upon the old and the new Special Areas, including Lancashire. The Poor Law relief figures have gone smaller in the last year, and a good deal has been made of it, but in every Special Area and in Lancashire those figures are going up. Since 1931 the increase upon the Poor Law authorities has been 286,000 each year, and the bulk of the burden is falling upon the authorities that can least bear it. That gives an indication of the condition of great masses of our people.
The Commissioner of the Special Areas is very much alarmed, and he has made reference to the Royal Commission that is sitting with regard to the distribution of the industrial population. I wonder when the report of that Royal Commission will be available. In his last report, the Commissioner for the Special Areas said:
It is to be hoped that even in advance of the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population something may be done by voluntary means to curb the tendency for new industries to establish themselves in the London area.
No attempt, apparently, is being made to get the report of the Royal Commission

or to do any thinking as to what may be done in face of this terrific problem. The Government practically insulted the Opposition in the last Debate, and it has now insulted its own supporters. They have been entrenched for years, but public opinion is at last blasting them out of the trenches. How much longer are hon. Members going to stand this kind of thing? I am certain that the country will not stand it much longer. I trust that when the Prime Minister speaks to-night it will be understood that if he is going to deal with unemployment it will be along the lines of work and wages, as suggested by my hon. Friend. There is to be no Hitler business in this country in handling the unemployed. I say that because there are those on the opposite side whose only contribution towards the unemployment problem is to make suggestions that more often are Fascist ideas. If the Prime Minister is making a declaration, we ought to see something done about men who have been suffering for years, particularly in areas like Wales, Lancashire and Durham. I trust also that if the Minister of Labour attempts in future to reply as the Parliamentary Secretary has done to-night, the House of Commons will reply in a very unusual manner instead of in the courteous way that has been shown towards Ministers in the last few months.

10.3 p.m.

Major Sir George Davies: I was sorry that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) opened his otherwise interesting speech in the way he did. One reason is that he does not seem to realise that this is the last Wednesday for Private Members' Debate, and it is not an occasion for a Minister to reply particularly to the Motion which has been moved, even from these benches. I am sorry also for a second reason. I have listened for nearly 16 years to a long series of Debates on the question of unemployment, and my mind goes back to those earlier days when it could never be discussed without arousing the most violent party feeling. Those of us who have been in the House for a long period will remember the late Mr. Tom Shaw saying on this subject that he could not be expected to produce rabbits out of a hat. I also remember when the rural landscape was disfigured with posters stating that unemployment could be cured. The party of which I am a


Member have been guilty in the same way. When the figures of unemployment have gone down, we have said that it was entirely due to our Government, and when they have gone up, we have said that it was due to international causes.
I had hoped by the way that the Debate had been conducted—until the hon. Gentleman just intervened—that this evening we were at last considering this matter from the national and not from the party point of view. My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that in all quarters of the House and the country people are very gravely disturbed at the position of employment and unemployment in this country. The other night the Minister of Labour dissected the figures to show what was and what was not the reason for the increase and what was the size of the standing army of the unemployed. In the situation now facing us I suggest that all that is beside the point. We have a great blot on our industrial escutcheon in these 2,000,000 people who are not in work. I have no brief for Mr. Hitler or for the system in Germany, but when he came into power he said that one of the things he was going to do was to do away with unemployment, and he has done so to such an extent that he is now importing labour from a neighbouring country into the industries of Germany. The question of how he has done it is for the moment immaterial. [Interruption.] Yes, it is immaterial to the point I am trying to make, which is that he has made a great impression on public opinion in Germany that he has carried out this undertaking of his. We have dissected this matter for long enough. We are all responsible —all the parties in the country, and none of us have managed to deal with the core of the problem. That is a matter for a certain amount of national shame. It is true that the hard core is of those people who have been for long years breaking their hearts in hopelessness, and those on the threshold of life whose only knowledge of contributing to the industrial activities of the country is to wait until Friday and then to go round to the employment exchange. Those are two national tragedies.
This matter cannot be treated on purely economic lines. It is uneconomic to subsidise houses so that people who could not otherwise afford to do so can live in

a more expensive house than they would normally be able to afford. But does anyone suggest that such a tiling was not justified up to the hilt and that we had to do it? This problem is psychological, and not economic. From the common sense point of view we must admit that there will always have to be a certain reservoir of unemployment. Our statistics are so complete in this country over such a long period of years that they include large numbers of people who are not normally regarded as unemployed, but who come in to our calculations and swell our figures. The other point is that with a constantly elastic system of industry there must be a reservoir to be called upon when business is good and activity is rising, as compared with times of moderate recession, not necessarily of slump. To cover that point is exactly why we established our unemployment insurance system, which is the envy of every other country. But after years of hope we have to admit that we have been unsuccessful, and that we still have those two running sores on the body politic, namely, those who have been eating their hearts out year after year, and the young people who have never learned what it means to give a week's work for a week's pay.
I appeal to my hon. Friend to recognise that this is a psychological question. It is not a question of statistics. We like to regard ourselves as one of the foremost industrial countries in the world from many points of view, but we find ourselves defeated by this problem. The nation is ready to have its determination and enthusiasm fired to deal with it. I appeal to those upon our Front Bench to recognise that the time has come in those two aspects of the problem to disregard statistics and to concentrate on the psychological position in which we are carrying as dead weight human beings who are losing all hope. There is a loss to the wealth productivity of the country, to take even that sordid point of view. Only yesterday we were dealing with the terrible question of those enormous and astronomical loans for the needs of the present emergency, and yet out of the industrial reserves of this country we are still carrying along 2,000,000 who are out of work.
I appeal for something which will tackle the problem from the psychological point of view, and which will appeal to the imagination of the country, whether it


is by the co-ordination of the industrialists or whatever else it may be, just as we are waiting to have our imaginations roused on a definite programme of air raid precautions and national defence. I am not so bold as some of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate as to attempt to suggest in detail what should or can be done because that is not my task, and it would be an impertinence of me to make concrete and definite suggestions. I speak from the general point of view. I believe that we have been tagging this problem along for long enough, and that the time has come when the country will respond to a psychological appeal which will inspire their imagination and arouse their enthusiasm.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: We have seen no sign yet of Government effort to find employment, and the increasing gravity of unemployment is a measure of the Government's futility. In the Debate last Thursday we waited in vain for any indication of the Government's plans for dealing with the situation, but both the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade avoided the main point of the Debate. Hon. Members have endeavoured to make capital out of the number of workers who are in employment, but it was very significant that no mention was made of that figure in the speech of the Minister of Labour last week. I think the reason is obvious, because we now have the figures and they show 184,000 fewer people in employment in January than in December, and 50,000 fewer than a year ago. Considering the increased population those figures are very serious.
Unemployment unfortunately increases monthly, but apparently the Government accept that increase as inevitable. One-time staple industries, such as mining, shipbuilding, engineering, cotton and fishing, are much depressed. In the Press to-day we can see a lament because of the number of shipyards that are practically idle. On Tees-side we have one of the best-equipped shipyards in England, but to-day seven out of eight of its berths are empty. I saw in the Press this morning that only two men and 20 apprentices are employed in that yard, some 2,000 fewer men than in 1914. In the last War we lost a third of our shipping; the next

war will be more serious because of aerial bombardment. We must remember that there are 5,000,000 more people to feed. So long as we have to rely so much upon overseas supplies for our food an adequate mercantile marine is necessary and is essential as an adjunct to the Navy. At the present time the United States are building mercantile vessels as an adjunct to the United States Navy. In the last War the Navy commandeered something like 2,000. We cannot expect in the next war, as we did in the last War, to rely on the Basques to help us.
There are two very significant events which show the need for trade improvement. The railway companies are appealling for a square deal to remedy a position which they say is due to declining trade. Take the attitude of the engineering firms against giving an increase of wages to the engineers. The engineering firms declare that the trade decline has already begun. Employers are quite well aware that the arms boom cannot last, and the Government so far have given no indication of any plans to meet the downward trade cycle. Unless rumour be a lying jade we have the Unemployment Statutory Committee believing that by 1942 we shall have at least 2,750,000 unemployed. I note that the Government are under the delusion that trade prosperity will return, but I am afraid that we cannot again hope to be the manufacturing nation of the world, because during the War all countries were thrown upon their own resources, and those countries now manufacture the goods which we formerly supplied.
Ministers time and again have derided suggestions for public works. We do not propose asking the unemployed to dig holes and fill them again, but to engage in public works that are absolutely necessary to the prosperity of this country. At the present time there are thousands of acres of land under water. A commission some years ago reported that by having a proper system of land drainage in this country, it would be possible to employ almost immediately 50,000 men and to find work for them for at least 12 months. In the mining districts there are flooded mines. In my division there is a mine with a pumping machine that pumps 2,500 gallons of water a minute 900 feet high. Other mines which have been re-opened during the past two years can work only the top seam and millions


of tons of coal are going to waste because of the flooded condition of the mines. There are harbour improvements that could be carried out, and which are certainly very essential to us as a maritime nation. We saw it stated in the Press the other day, when those brave lifeboat-men at St. Ives lost their lives, that if a response had been made to their constant agitation for harbour improvements their lives might have been saved.
If one takes the question of housing, there are to-day 347,000 building operatives wholly unemployed. We were told by the Minister of Health in a Debate a few months ago that houses to be let were being built at the rate of 140,000 per annum. It has been computed on excellent authority that it will take at least 10 years at that rate to meet the housing needs of this country. In Durham alone 33,000 houses are needed to meet the housing requirements of the people, and by 1942 all houses are to be de-controlled, and if the housing needs are not met by that time, it will mean that house rents will be increased.
Unemployment is receiving special attention at Geneva, and it is good to know that the Parliamentary Secretary pays some tribute to the work that is being done there on the question of unemployment. But, unfortunately, with the connivance of the British Government they have now cut down the staff of the International Labour Office at Geneva and so are handicapping them in their work. Unemployment is no longer considered to be an act of God but the action of men. Scientific devices are constantly being introduced to increase production. We contend that the scientific devices ought not to be used merely as wage-saving devices, but as labour-saving in the real sense, and that is by a reduction in working hours.
What is the attitude of the British Government at Geneva to this question of reducing hours? They have always opposed a reduction of hours. On Friday next we shall give them an opportunity of dealing with this question as it affects domestic occupations, where there are no international obligations and no foreign competition. I hope the Minister of Labour will rise to the occasion and support our Shops Bill. Other countries have certainly set an example, so far as working hours are concerned. The United

States have not only raised the age of entry into industry to 16 but have reduced the hours in certain industries to 35 and in others to 40, and by that means have been able to absorb over 5,000,000 of their unemployed. The British Dominions have also given an object lesson to the mother country in this respect. And take poor Czecho-Slovakia. Before the Nazis came 750 factories worked a 40-hour week, but nobody knows what it is going to be now that they are under Nazi tyranny. Some time ago Sir Charles Mander, speaking to the Incorporated Sales Managers Association, declared that a 40-hour week in this country would absorb at least 250,000 of our unemployed.
Foreign competition is constantly trotted out as the bogy which prevents the Government agreeing to a 40-hour week by international agreement, but that cannot be said so far as domestic occupations are concerned. While unemployment is increasing we find that overtime in many firms continues. The chief factory inspector in his report last year showed the amount of overtime imposed upon boys and girls in the Midlands and the South of England. It is a shocking state of affairs that men and women, boys and girls, should be working overtime when numbers of people are unable to obtain employment. Durham is stated to be the black spot of English unemployment. The increase during November was 2,000; that means that there are 60,000 workers in the county unemployed. I take it at that figure because in September the number of unemployed was 58,940. Apart from the Team Valley Trading Estate very little has been done to help industry in the county of Durham. In reply to a question I put to the Minister I received an answer which showed that only 759 have been found employment and that most of them are mere children. That is what the Government have done for one of the distressed areas.
I contend that the distressed areas, with their derelict villages, stand as monuments to the Government's neglect. There is an alarming increase in sickness and mortality in those areas. I hope that the Minister of Health is thinking of the position there. In Durham, the male death rate is 20 per cent, over the average for the whole country, and while the birth rate is the highest, it is significant that the death rate of mothers and babies is the


highest. What do the Government intend to do about this? Have they any plans for finding work for the unemployed? If so, why do they not reveal them to the House and the country? The Labour party have a plan: it is to plan the resources of the nation in the interests of the national wellbeing. That is the only effective policy for achieving real prosperity. I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "that," to "there," in line 2, and to insert instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House, subject to the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observance of trade union rates and conditions.

10.27 p.m.

Mrs. Adamson: I beg to second the Amendment.
The latest figures of the register of unemployment present a serious problem to right-minded men and women in this House and in the country. These tragic figures constitute an overwhelming indictment of shameful neglect. They cannot be explained away by bad weather or by any other excuse which the Government spokesman put forward. The outstanding fact is that the total of work-less is the highest since January, 1936, at a time when the Government have been telling the people that we are in a boom period and have prosperity, and when we have a huge rearmament programme and the nation is asked to mobilise all its resources for National Defence. The increase in unemployment affects the whole country——

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) moved an Amendment dealing with the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observance of trade union rates and conditions. Of course, the moving of that Amendment narrows down the whole Debate to those particular points; and the hon. Lady may not go into the whole question of unemployment on this Amendment.

Mrs. Adamson: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. As a newcomer to the House, I am not acquainted with the Rules of Debate.

Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Does your Ruling mean that any hon. Member who speaks subsequently to the hon. Lady must also keep within the limits of the Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly. The moment we get on to the Amendment we can deal only with the questions raised in the Amendment.

Mr. Markham: Is it not a fact that the previous speaker mentioned such things as mortality rates, and so on?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) was speaking on the general question and moved the Amendment at the end of his speech.

Mr. Fleming: Further to my point of Order. I understood from the Ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker that this Amendment was not accepted. Has it now been accepted by you?

Mr. Speaker: I did not understand that. I understood that my Deputy said that he proposed to select the Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: May I say that I thought the House was quite clear on the point that Mr. Deputy-Speaker did accept the Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, that was my understanding.

Mrs. Adamson: I feel that as regards the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observance of trade union rates and conditions, there is a vast deal of work which could be carried out under those heads and without going into the matter further I shall content myself with seconding the Amendment.

10.31 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I find myself not in disagreement with the Amendment, and, personally, I see no real reason why in the difficult position in which we find ourselves the voluntary principle and trade union rates and conditions should not be observed, but I do not propose to follow that point except to say that everything which I have to put to the House is subject to that idea.

Mr. Speaker: As there seems to be a desire in the House to continue the general discussion, perhaps the best course would be to get the Amendment out of the way now. If it is the wish of the House I will put the Amendment now.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will that prevent me from suggesting later certain means whereby such principles may be


carried out, and dealing with certain types of work, and so forth?

Mr. Speaker: That can be dealt with in the further Debate on the general question.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

10.41 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I should like to continue what I was going to say. I

Question put, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 90.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[10.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Hambro, A. V.
Rankin, sir R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, WJ
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hepworth, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. at Lin.)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Beechman, N. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Barium, W. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Bull, B. B.
Hunloke, H. P.
Spens, W. P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Crooks, Sir J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Liddall, W. S.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De Chair, S. S.
Lipson, O. L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eastwood, J. F.
Medlicott, F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Fleming, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Munro, P.



Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Mr. Emery and Mr. Hamilton


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Kerr.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hayday, A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pearson, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Aske, Sir R. W.
John, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberta, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Silkin, L.


Benson, G.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Collindridge, F.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpath)


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macmillan, H. (Slockton-on-Tees)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Markham, S. F.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Leslie and Mrs. Adamson.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.

have had considerable difficulty with the Amendment, and I hope I shall be in order in speaking on the general question of unemployment. I am aware that it is one of the most complicated of our problems, and I know of no problem of

which there have been more disappointments and more failures.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now going back to the main Question. The Question before the House now is the acceptance of the Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I wish to speak against the proposed words being inserted. In doing so I should like to point out that the Opposition have been bitterly critical, perhaps naturally enough, although their bitter criticism is a deplorable thing. It is not conducive to anything which is likely to help this problem. If I had my way I should enlist the sympathies and the aid and the advice of the Opposition in such a matter. We are spending millions on rearmament for the safety of ourselves and the good of posterity. I should like to see us spending more money——

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. May I ask what the position is now in view of the Amendment having been carried? May I draw the attention of the Chief Patronage Secretary to the fact that the Government have been defeated? [Hon. Members: "No."] If a Motion of congratulation to the Government moved by one of its supporters is defeated and that is not a Government defeat, I do not know what is. May I ask the Chief Patronage Secretary what he proposes to do?

10.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): As the House will recognise, this is a Private Member's day, and as such I and those who function with me in the Whips' Office have no official business to perform. It is a free vote of the House; it is for hon. Members to do what they may wish on an evening such as this. Therefore, the honour or the prestige of the Government is in no way involved. The hon. Member asked what the Government proposes to do about it. I have just said that the Government as such is not involved, and, as far as I am concerned, the Debate will go on until those hon. or right hon. Members who wish to speak have exhausted their right of speaking, or until the Clock reaches 11, when a Division can be taken on the question which I understand is now before the House, that is to insert the words:

in the opinion of this House, subject to the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observance of trade union rates and conditions.
That is the Question which is before the House, I understand. The question which was put to the House just now was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part," and the Motion that they stand part was defeated, and the Question which Mr. Speaker then put to the House, and on which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Lewes Division (Rear-Admiral Beamish) got up to speak, was to insert the words which stand upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson). It is that Question which is now before: the House to decide, and if I am asked what the Government propose to do about it the Government will——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) rose to a point of Order, and I have not yet had a chance of saying anything about it. The Question before the House is that, certain words having been deleted, other words should be inserted. That is the Question before the House.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what is the ordinary practice of the House? What has happened is that a Motion moved by a Government Member expressing satisfaction with the Government has been defeated. The Chief Whip's explanation of that is that when the House is left free from pressure from the Government Whips it votes against the Government. Is it not a fact, and a matter of ordinary practice, that when such a direct rebuff has been given to the Government the Minister in charge usually moves the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I never heard of it myself.

Mr. Benn: Do I understand you to rule, Sir, that a vote given by the House in this manner is in some way different from a vote given when the Government Whips are there to direct the vote?

Mr. Speaker: Private Members' Motions are not a question for the Government. They are a matter for the House itself.

Mr. Lawson: May I draw your attention to the fact that the Government


Whips openly, in the House, brought pressure to bear upon the hon. Member who moved the Motion in order to take a Division?

Mr. Speaker: A very common practice.

Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. May I ask this, for the guidance of the House and particularly of those who wanted to take part in the original discussion? I take it that the House has now decided that we should leave out from "That" in line 1 to "there" in line 2, and on examining my Order Paper I fail to see that word
"That" appearing at all in line 1. The word "That" is in line 2. How can we leave out of line 1 what does not appear in line 1?

Mr. Speaker: The Question before the House is that the words
in the opinion of this House, subject to the maintenance of the voluntary principle and the observance of trade union rates and conditions
should be inserted at the beginning of the Motion.

Mr. Fleming: I was taking the words which appear on the Paper. Are we entitled to raise the point as to where these words appear in the actual Motion?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry the hon. Member cannot understand me. The words in the original Motion which are left out are:
whilst recognising the value of the efforts of the Government to stimulate industry and find employment, this House is of opinion that.
Then follows the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald).

Mr. Thurtle: On a further point of Order. How many points of Order may an hon. Member raise before you stop him on the ground of irrelevance?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter entirely for me to decide.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: In reference to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street(Mr. Lawson), you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that if the Motion is defeated that involves no reflection on the Government, but may I submit to you that where that applies to a Motion which seeks to commend the

value of the Government's efforts for dealing with unemployment, and where that part of a Private Member's Motion is rejected, that involves a direct Vote of no confidence in the Government for this reason, that now we have left out of this Motion words which state that the House recognises "the value of the efforts of the Government"; which means that the House declines to recognise the value of the efforts of the Government, and therefore declines to recognise the use of the Government in the House at all? Surely in those circumstances it is incumbent upon the Government to say what action they propose to take to meet the situation?

Mr. Speaker: I have already answered that point.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I disagree with this Amendment for one good reason As far as I can see, it would not cover very essential work that could be done to remedy unemployment. I allude to work in connection with agriculture. As hon. Members opposite will perhaps remember, they themselves were responsible for the passing of the Agricultural Wages Act, which means that the wages of agricultural workers are not limited by trade union rates, but the agricultural workers have a far better protection in the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act and, so far as I can see, we are by this Motion saying that agricultural work cannot be used to remedy the great problem of unemployment. For the last 15 years there has been a great diminution of labour on the land, and we on this side of the House have tried to do what we can to get those 277,000 men back to agriculture.
The Socialists have not taken up the same position. Their candidate for the Ripon Division has said that his way of dealing with agricultural problems is to give the farmer a blow under the chin and then throw cold water upon him. I do not know whether the Socialists in the Ripon Division believe that that will ever remedy unemployment—[Interruption.] It is unfortunate that the Socialists, in bringing forward their Amendment to deal with unemployment, should entirely —[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to carry on a conversation, I hope they will go to their usual abode in the House to do so. I was saying that it is unfortunate that their party should neglect


the great problem of the rural areas and the problem of the relief of unemployment by agricultural work. I listened with great care to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, but both their speeches, unfortunately, were short, and did not deal at all with the problem of how to put men on the land. When we are told that the Land Drainage Act is quite inoperative, that was because of the difficulties which were put in the way by the party opposite. I believe there is a great opportunity of relieving unemployment by putting men on this work, and I welcome the decision of the Government to give grants for that purpose.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Turton: I hope very much that the House, when it considers this problem, come to the same view as myself. I

should like to sec an Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved, to lay down that in that case also the wages should be regulated by the Agricultural Wages Act passed in 1924. I do not know whether I should be in order in moving such an Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Turton: If I am not, may I put another argument as to the reason why I do not believe that these proposed words will meet the case?

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 135.

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[11.01 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hamsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Parker, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Price, M, P.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bellenger F. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
John, W.
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Slake)


Collindridge, F.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G
Kirkwood, D.
Sorenson, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher. Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsand)


Foot, D. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Wait wood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E, J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Georgo, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Altercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Emery and Mr. Lees-Jones




NOES.


Acland-Troyta, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beechman, N. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Baldwin-Webb, Col, J.
Bernays, R. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Boothby, R. J. G.


Alien, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Boulton, W. W.




Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Brooke, H. (Lewitham, W.)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bull, B. B.
Holdsworth, H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Snadden, W. McN.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spans, W. P.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Liddall, W. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


De Chair, S. S.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lipson, D. L.
Thomas, J. P. L


Denvilte, Alfred
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lloyd, G. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Turton, R. H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E,
Medlicott, F.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Fyte, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Moreing, A. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Greene, W. P. C, (Worcester)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wise, A. R.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hambro, A. V-
Munro, P.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peake, O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hepworth, J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Mrs. Adamson and Mr. Leslie.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn, put and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Lieut.-Commander Agnew rose——

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.

Ordered,
That Lieut.-Commander Tufnell be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee to be appointed by the Lords on Breaking up of Streets by Statutory Undertakers, and that Sir John Train be added to the Committee." —[Mr. James Stuart."]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

11.9 p.m.

Major Despencer-Robertson: I apologise to the House for speaking at this late hour, I should not have done so had the subject not been one of considerable importance to a large number of people. It is also one of extreme urgency. I refer to the case of private traders known as encroachment holders at Bulford camp. The practice has been adopted by private traders at other camps. Their leases are due to expire this year and in 1940, and in all cases they have been given notice that on the expiration, when new leases are granted, they will either have to rebuild on the same site or on some site which will be duly allotted to them. Private traders who are selling food or confectionery have been informed that in no circumstances will they be allowed to rebuild.
There is no doubt that this action has been deliberately taken in order to drive the small traders out of business for the immediate benefit of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, commonly called N.A.A.F.I. A protest was made on the subject by the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce, to the Major-General in


charge of the administration of the Southern Command. They pointed out that in a letter to the National Chamber of Commerce, dated January, 1931, the Army Council explicitly stated that no restriction whatever was imposed upon individual officers and men, and their families in the matter of free choice of trader with whom they would deal. In answer to that letter the Major-General who is in charge of the administration of the Southern Command wrote:
It is the intention of the Army Council that no restriction shall be placed upon members of the garrison as to whom they shall trade with. This, however, does not imply that the War Office should provide such trading within the barrack areas where, in the opinion of the competent military authorities, such business would compete with the business of N.A.A.F.I.
Are we to believe that when the Army Council said there were to be no restrictions they were speaking with their tongue in their cheek and intending to put the double round the post in that way. I suggest that the intention of the Army Council was plain that there should be no restrictions and I ask what right has the Southern Command to decree that N.A.A.F.I. should have a monopoly.
I would point out that it is not a question of granting facilities but merely of renewing existing leases. If this action is confirmed, what will be the position of men who are no longer allowed to ply their trade? In normal circumstances, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1907, the leasehold tenant has the right to claim compensation where he has carried on a trade or business for at least five years, but, unfortunately for these men, the Act contains a proviso that where any Government Department has terminated the lease by resuming possession of the premises for the purposes of the Department, no compensation is payable.
One of these traders is an ex-regular soldier and has been established at Bulford for 20 years. He will now be entirely deprived of his livelihood, and no compensation will be given to him. Another trader was given definitely to understand, when his business was transferred to him, that the conditions would be, as stated in Command Memorandum No. 1397, dated 8th August 1934, that the encroachment
was transferred to him on condition that he agreed to erect a permanent building.

He has applied for a fresh agreement and permission to rebuild has been refused. He is an ex-regular soldier of 21 years' service. What is to become of him if he is turned out without compensation?
There are other instances, but at this late hour I do not want to go into the details of them. I will stress the further point that the removal of competition is not in the best interest of the troops. It is obvious that if the private traders had not been providing a service required by the troops they would have been unable to make a livelihood hitherto. One of the rules of the N.A.A.F.I. states that they deal only with civilians in cases specially permitted by the corporation Actually anyone can buy anything he wants, and one of the civilians quite unknown to N.A.A.F.I. in Bulford, while investigating the case, get in and made a purchase. Still it is the rule that only certain civilians on a strict list can deal with N.A.A.F.I. There is a large civilian population at Bulford Camp, and it is likely to be increased in the future, when the need of civilian traders will be as great as, or even greater than, ever before.
I submit that this action, in trying to establish a monopoly is too high-handed, and the method adopted has certainly a rather unpleasant ring about it. Gross injustice and great hardship have been done to some very deserving private traders, and I earnestly hope the War Office will allow these men to continue to earn their livelihood, unmolested by the N.A.A.F.I.

11.17 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): My hon. and gallant Friend originally brought this question to the notice of my right hon. Friend by means of a letter which he wrote to him, I think, on 8th February. As it was not quite clear to my right hon. Friend what my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind, I got in communication with him and asked if he would be good enough to come and discuss the matter so that I could know exactly what his complaint was. As a result of that we met and had a conversation, and he was good enough to tell me of the particular point that he had in mind, so that I could be in a position to make some inquiries. I am very sorry to have to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that, in spite of the days which have since elapsed, I have not been able to gather


up all the ends which my hon. and gallant Friend has unravelled.
There is a variety of interests involved here. It has been physically impossible for me to get all the information I needed or to complete the inquiries which I have instituted. While I am not in a position, therefore, to give my hon. and gallant Friend a complete answer to-night, there are one or two facts I would like to state in reply to the speech he has made. I would like to make it quite clear that no actual formal notice has been given to any of the lessees of these premises at Bulford Camp.

Major Despencer-Robertson: I am told that they will receive notice.

Sir V. Warrender: They are on short-term tenancies. They have been warned that they will be required to vacate their premises on due notice. My hon. and gallant Friend has said what their position would be so far as compensation is concerned. I think he stated the legal position perfectly correctly. Actually, I understand they have no claim to compensation. If they could establish such a right, the claim which would be put forward would be carefully considered. It must be borne in mind that these tenants, when they took up these leases, knew the terms on which they held the premises. The other point is the chief ground of the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member. That is the question of giving a monopoly to what is commonly known as the N.A.A.F.I.
On that I can say only that the policy of the Department is that while no complete monopoly should be given to the N.A.A.F.I., leases should not be granted in cases where there is a prospect that the business will compete seriously with N.A.A.F.I.'s trade with junior ranks and their families. That is done for good reasons. The troops get a certain substantial advantage from trading with the N.A.A.F.I. Of course, no restriction is placed upon them and they are perfectly free to trade with whomsoever they choose. I do not think it is technically correct or quite fair to say that the policy of the Department is so completely to restrict trade in the camps that N.A.A.F.I. virtually have a complete monopoly. We seek to serve the interests of the troops themselves by

reason of the basis upon which N.A.A.F.I. is constituted.
May I sum up the position as I see it? The hon. and gallant Member is endeavouring to obtain justice for his constituents. I am endeavouring in the inquiries I am pursuing to see that no injustice is done to them. Although we may be approaching this question from slightly different angles I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that at any rate to the extent of seeking justice we stand upon the same ground. As soon as I have completed my inquiries I will immediately communicate with him. I do not anticipate that they will be very prolonged and I hope that we shall be able to clear up the matter in a satisfactory manner.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am a little concerned about the matter which has been raised, because I have had a great deal of correspondence with one or two Service Departments about the same principle. I recognise that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has endeavoured to give as fair an answer as he could with his present information but there were two statements in his little speech which are contradictory. In one place he said the policy of the Department was to protect the N.A.A.F.I. from undue competition in the interests of the men and their families and the other statement was that he did not wish to interfere with the right of those people to select the tradesmen with whom they will deal.
I want to warn the House that in many cases where leases have been given up or not renewed and a tradesman has endeavoured to obtain a permit to enter the married quarters to canvas the wives of their customers they have in many cases been refused a permit to enter. In fact you throw a wife living in the garrison back upon the N.A.A.F.I., and this is the deliberate policy of the Government. I want to add this: The real purpose of the N.A.A.F.I. is for the co-operative and mutual benefit of the serving troops. There is no doubt about that.
Thirty-five years ago the Co-operative Union of Great Britain recognised that there was much to be done for good and for raising the standards in that direction. The whole service of the Co-operative Union was placed at the disposal of the body formerly controlling these matters,


the Navy and Army Canteen Board. For a long time there was an officer of the Co-operative Union on the board to assist them in that object. But to promote the idea that it is the function of the Service Departments to protect such an institution to the extent of completely denying freedom of choice to the wives of serving troops as to where they buy their goods, is a complete anomaly as compared with the original principle when the institution was set up. I would like to say to the Financial Secretary that, while I have no complaint to make about the manner

in which he has prepared his case up the present, there are many hon. Members besides the hon. and gallant Member who raised the matter to-night who will be watching this principle with great anxiety and a great determination to see that freedom of choice remains to the wives of the serving troops.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock